Mayet v Laher and Others (46614/2013) [2014] ZAGPJHC 199 (2 July 2014)

Mayet v Laher and Others (46614/2013) [2014] ZAGPJHC 199 (2 July 2014)

The court found that the applicant failed to meet the requirements for an anton piller order. The cause of action was based on breach of mandate and negligence, but the original settlement agreement was not necessary to prove the claim. The applicant had already received and inspected the agreement, and there was no evidence or reason advanced to suggest that the document would be destroyed or hidden. Furthermore, the applicant failed to act in utmost good faith by not disclosing that the claim before Claassen J was against the first respondent only and that he had withdrawn the claim and tendered costs. These omissions were material and could have influenced the court's decision to grant...

Citation
[2014] ZAGPJHC 199
Parties
Applicant: Abdulhay Mohamed Mayet; Respondent: Haroon Yusuf Laher; Respondent: Bernard S Fourie; Respondent: BVZ Attorneys Aka Bezuidenhout Van Zyl Inc; Respondent: Citibank N.A.
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 July 2014
Case Number
46614/2013
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Set Aside Anton Piller Order and Confirm Rule Nisi
Outcome
Application dismissed; anton piller order set aside; costs awarded against applicant.
Judges
S S Mphahlele
Legal Topics
Anton Piller Order, Preservation of Evidence, Breach of Mandate, Costs Award
Civil Procedure Anton Piller Order Preservation of Evidence Breach of Mandate Costs Award

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abdulhay Mohamed Mayet

Applicant

Haroon Yusuf Laher

Respondent

Bernard S Fourie

Respondent

BVZ Attorneys Aka Bezuidenhout Van Zyl Inc

Respondent

Citibank N.A.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Set Aside Anton Piller Order and Confirm Rule Nisi

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant satisfied the requirements for the granting of an anton piller order.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant established a cause of action against the respondents justifying the preservation of evidence.
  3. 3 Whether there was a real apprehension that the original settlement agreement would be destroyed or hidden.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to meet the requirements for an anton piller order. The cause of action was based on breach of mandate and negligence, but the original settlement agreement was not necessary to prove the claim. The applicant had already received and inspected the agreement, and there was no evidence or reason advanced to suggest that the document would be destroyed or hidden. Furthermore, the applicant failed to act in utmost good faith by not disclosing that the claim before Claassen J was against the first respondent only and that he had withdrawn the claim and tendered costs. These omissions were material and could have influenced the court's decision to grant...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; anton piller order set aside; costs awarded against applicant.

Orders

  • The anton piller order dated 09 January 2014 is set aside.
  • The applicant is liable for the costs of this application and those of the counter-application, including the costs consequent upon the employment of two counsels.