Mannatt and Another v de Kock and Others (18799/2018) [2020] ZAWCHC 10 (21 February 2020)

Mannatt and Another v de Kock and Others (18799/2018) [2020] ZAWCHC 10 (21 February 2020)

The court found that the urgency claimed by the applicants was entirely self-created, as they had failed to take effective steps to appeal the judgment of Rogers J within the prescribed time limits. Their repeated applications for similar relief, all brought as matters of urgency, amounted to a blatant abuse of the court's process. The applicants' prospects of success in stopping or reversing the execution of the costs order were considered nugatory, and their complaints regarding the taxation of costs and removal of property had already been addressed in previous judgments. The court held that there was no justification for entertaining the application as urgent and that a punitive costs...

Citation
[2020] ZAWCHC 10
Parties
Applicant: Marc Mannatt; Applicant: Louse Mannatt; Respondent: Pierre de Kock; Respondent: Deceased Estate of Emmerentia Katharina de Kock (de Villiers); Respondent: Mytthys de Kock; Respondent: Charl de Kock (also known as Rudolphus de Chatillion de Kock); Respondent: Lady Mcepa Trust – IT3609/2005; Respondent: Mytthys Michael de Kock Trust – MT/3871/1987; Respondent: Johann Francois Vos; Respondent: Estate Emmerentia Slabbert Senior; Respondent: Department of Justice and Constitutional Development; Respondent: Master of the High Court Cape Town; Respondent: L.P. Le Roux (Magistrate, Hermanus); Respondent: Neil Slabbert; Respondent: Emmerentia Slabbert Junior; Respondent: Emily van der Merwe; Respondent: Keith Matthee; Respondent: Lucas Steyn; Respondent: Coenraad Bierman; Respondent: Dumaresq (Pty) Ltd – Reg. No. 1967/009619/07; Respondent: Loraine de Kock; Respondent: Matthys de Kock Junior; Respondent: Stephanus de Kock; Respondent: Aldalene Brand (Neé de Kock); Respondent: Trevor Edward Eyden; Respondent: Deceased Estate of Stanley Wesley Eyden – 13864/2007; Respondent: The Sheriff of Hermanus; Respondent: The Sheriff of Bellville
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 February 2020
Case Number
18799/2018
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Application to Strike From the Roll for Lack of Urgency
Outcome
Application struck from the roll for lack of urgency with punitive costs order.
Judges
A.G. Binns-Ward
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Punitive Costs Order, Abuse of Process, Urgency, Rule 45, Vexatious Litigation
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Punitive Costs Order Abuse of Process Urgency Rule 45 Vexatious Litigation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marc Mannatt

Applicant

Louse Mannatt

Applicant

Pierre de Kock

Respondent

Deceased Estate of Emmerentia Katharina de Kock (de Villiers)

Respondent

Mytthys de Kock

Respondent

Charl de Kock (also known as Rudolphus de Chatillion de Kock)

Respondent

Lady Mcepa Trust – IT3609/2005

Respondent

Mytthys Michael de Kock Trust – MT/3871/1987

Respondent

Johann Francois Vos

Respondent

Estate Emmerentia Slabbert Senior

Respondent

Department of Justice and Constitutional Development

Respondent

Master of the High Court Cape Town

Respondent

L.P. Le Roux (Magistrate, Hermanus)

Respondent

Neil Slabbert

Respondent

Emmerentia Slabbert Junior

Respondent

Emily van der Merwe

Respondent

Keith Matthee

Respondent

Lucas Steyn

Respondent

Coenraad Bierman

Respondent

Dumaresq (Pty) Ltd – Reg. No. 1967/009619/07

Respondent

Loraine de Kock

Respondent

Matthys de Kock Junior

Respondent

Stephanus de Kock

Respondent

Aldalene Brand (Neé de Kock)

Respondent

Trevor Edward Eyden

Respondent

Deceased Estate of Stanley Wesley Eyden – 13864/2007

Respondent

The Sheriff of Hermanus

Respondent

The Sheriff of Bellville

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Application to Strike From the Roll for Lack of Urgency

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application to stay execution of the costs order should be entertained as a matter of urgency.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have prospects of success in stopping or reversing the execution of the costs order.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants' conduct constitutes an abuse of court process warranting a punitive costs order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the urgency claimed by the applicants was entirely self-created, as they had failed to take effective steps to appeal the judgment of Rogers J within the prescribed time limits. Their repeated applications for similar relief, all brought as matters of urgency, amounted to a blatant abuse of the court's process. The applicants' prospects of success in stopping or reversing the execution of the costs order were considered nugatory, and their complaints regarding the taxation of costs and removal of property had already been addressed in previous judgments. The court held that there was no justification for entertaining the application as urgent and that a punitive costs...

Court Disposition

Application struck from the roll for lack of urgency with punitive costs order.

Orders

  • The application is struck from the roll with costs on the scale as between attorney and client, including the fees of two counsel.
  • The applicants' liability for payment of the respondents' costs of suit shall be joint and several.