Mashaba and Others v Muller and Others (22900/2020) [2021] ZAGPPHC 143 (10 March 2021)

Mashaba and Others v Muller and Others (22900/2020) [2021] ZAGPPHC 143 (10 March 2021)

The applicants failed to demonstrate a clear right to the information sought. The relief they requested is not supported by the Nampak Glass decision, which provides procedural mechanisms only to persons wronged and against parties mixed up in the wrongdoing. In this case, the applicants have not been wronged, and Mr Muller is the victim of the alleged intimidation, not the facilitator. The requirements for a final interdict and Norwich Pharmacal relief are not satisfied. The application must therefore fail.

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 143
Parties
Applicant: Auswell Mashaba; Applicant: Wolfram Carl Helmuth Langrebe; Applicant: WKH Langrebe & Co; Applicant: John Joseph Finlay Cameron; Respondent: Johannes Zacharias Human Muller; Respondent: Johannes Zacharias Human Muller NO; Respondent: Ndyamara Aviwe Ntandazo NO; Respondent: Madlala Mandla Professor NO; Respondent: The Master of the High Court
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 March 2021
Case Number
22900/2020
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
SK Hassim
Legal Topics
Final Interdict, Right to Information, Norwich Pharmacal Relief
Civil Procedure Final Interdict Right to Information Norwich Pharmacal Relief

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Auswell Mashaba

Applicant

Wolfram Carl Helmuth Langrebe

Applicant

WKH Langrebe & Co

Applicant

John Joseph Finlay Cameron

Applicant

Johannes Zacharias Human Muller

Respondent

Johannes Zacharias Human Muller NO

Respondent

Ndyamara Aviwe Ntandazo NO

Respondent

Madlala Mandla Professor NO

Respondent

The Master of the High Court

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have a clear right to the information sought from the respondents.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants are entitled to a final interdict compelling disclosure of the identity of the alleged intimidator.
  3. 3 Whether the Norwich Pharmacal relief as developed in Nampak Glass applies to the facts of this case.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to demonstrate a clear right to the information sought. The relief they requested is not supported by the Nampak Glass decision, which provides procedural mechanisms only to persons wronged and against parties mixed up in the wrongdoing. In this case, the applicants have not been wronged, and Mr Muller is the victim of the alleged intimidation, not the facilitator. The requirements for a final interdict and Norwich Pharmacal relief are not satisfied. The application must therefore fail.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicants and Mr Cameron must jointly and severally pay the costs of the application as well as the costs of the application to strike out, including the costs occasioned by the employment of two counsel.