Mbaba and Others v Executor Estate Late Ngqele and Others (3129/2017) [2018] ZAECMHC 40 (14 August 2018)

Mbaba and Others v Executor Estate Late Ngqele and Others (3129/2017) [2018] ZAECMHC 40 (14 August 2018)

The court found that the requirements for res judicata were not met, as the parties and issues in the present application were not identical to those in previous litigation. Specifically, except for the second appellant and the first respondent, the parties in all three prior applications and the orders sought were not the same. Furthermore, the Liquidation and Distribution Account at issue in the current matter was different from that considered in previous cases. Therefore, the defence of res judicata was not applicable, and the court a quo erred in dismissing the application on that basis. The appeal was upheld and the respondents were ordered to pay the wasted costs.

Citation
[2018] ZAECMHC 40
Parties
Appellant: Siyabulela Mbaba; Appellant: Pumla Nothozamile Mbaba; Appellant: Zanele Mayekiso; Appellant: Siphokazi Mayekiso; Appellant: Siphiwo Mayekiso; Respondent: Executor: Estate Late Ngqele; Respondent: Edwin Mbaba; Respondent: Master of the High Court: Mthatha; Respondent: Mda Mncedane Inc.; Respondent: Nkululeko Mehlo; Respondent: Lusanda Nompandana; Respondent: Kholekile Ndamase; Respondent: Mziwothando Jivasi (a minor duly assisted by her/his mother); Respondent: Solam Mbada; Respondent: Azazole Mbaba; Respondent: Mda Mncedane Incorporated; Respondent: Standard Bank: Mthatha West
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 August 2018
Case Number
3129/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Dismissal of Application in the Court a Quo
Outcome
Appeal upheld; order of the court a quo set aside.
Judges
M Makaula, RWN Brooks, AM Bodlani
Legal Topics
Res Judicata, Liquidation and Distribution Account, Administration of Estates, Legal Standing
Civil Procedure Land and Property Res Judicata Liquidation and Distribution Account Administration of Estates Legal Standing

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Siyabulela Mbaba

Appellant

Pumla Nothozamile Mbaba

Appellant

Zanele Mayekiso

Appellant

Siphokazi Mayekiso

Appellant

Siphiwo Mayekiso

Appellant

Executor: Estate Late Ngqele

Respondent

Edwin Mbaba

Respondent

Master of the High Court: Mthatha

Respondent

Mda Mncedane Inc.

Respondent

Nkululeko Mehlo

Respondent

Lusanda Nompandana

Respondent

Kholekile Ndamase

Respondent

Mziwothando Jivasi (a minor duly assisted by her/his mother)

Respondent

Solam Mbada

Respondent

Azazole Mbaba

Respondent

Mda Mncedane Incorporated

Respondent

Standard Bank: Mthatha West

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Dismissal of Application in the Court a Quo

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the doctrine of res judicata was correctly applied to dismiss the appellants' application.
  2. 2 Whether the parties and issues in the present application are the same as those in previous litigation.
  3. 3 Whether the relief sought regarding the Liquidation and Distribution Account had already been decided.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the requirements for res judicata were not met, as the parties and issues in the present application were not identical to those in previous litigation. Specifically, except for the second appellant and the first respondent, the parties in all three prior applications and the orders sought were not the same. Furthermore, the Liquidation and Distribution Account at issue in the current matter was different from that considered in previous cases. Therefore, the defence of res judicata was not applicable, and the court a quo erred in dismissing the application on that basis. The appeal was upheld and the respondents were ordered to pay the wasted costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; order of the court a quo set aside.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The first and third respondents are to pay the wasted costs jointly and severally, one paying the other to be absolved.