M.E.M and Others v K.M N.O. and Others (5111/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 94 (27 March 2024)
The court found that the applicants failed to establish urgency, as the delays in taking action were not adequately explained and the urgency was self-created. The applicants were aware of the appointment of the executrix and the risks to estate assets for several months but did not pursue available remedies such as a review application or an interdict in a timely manner. The court held that the applicants' concerns regarding the administration of the estate were reasonable and bona fide, but the procedural requirements for urgency were not met. The application was removed from the roll, and the costs were ordered to be paid from the estate on a party and party scale, reflecting the...
- Citation
- [2024] ZAFSHC 94
- Parties
- Applicant: M[…] E[…] M[…]; Applicant: K[…] K[…]; Applicant: O[…] M[…]; Applicant: T[…] T[…]; Applicant: S[…] M[…]; Respondent: K[…] M[…] N.O.; Respondent: THE MASTER OF THE FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN; Respondent: MOLEFI THOABALA INC; Respondent: OLD MUTUAL LTD; Respondent: SANLAM
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 27 March 2024
- Case Number
- 5111/2023
- Procedural Posture
- Urgent Application / Application for Interim Interdict and Condonation, Heard as Urgent Motion
- Outcome
- Application removed from the roll for lack of urgency; costs to be paid from the estate on a party and party scale.
- Judges
- Van Zyl
- Legal Topics
- Urgent Interdict, Administration of Estates Act, Customary Marriage Recognition, Locus Standi, Condonation, Costs in Estate Litigation
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
M[…] E[…] M[…]
Applicant
K[…] K[…]
Applicant
O[…] M[…]
Applicant
T[…] T[…]
Applicant
S[…] M[…]
Applicant
K[…] M[…] N.O.
Respondent
THE MASTER OF THE FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN
Respondent
MOLEFI THOABALA INC
Respondent
OLD MUTUAL LTD
Respondent
SANLAM
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Interim Interdict and Condonation, Heard as Urgent Motion
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants established sufficient urgency to justify the urgent application.
- 2 Whether the applicants are entitled to an interim interdict restraining the executrix and her agent from administering the estate pending review.
- 3 Whether the applicants have locus standi to bring the application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants failed to establish urgency, as the delays in taking action were not adequately explained and the urgency was self-created. The applicants were aware of the appointment of the executrix and the risks to estate assets for several months but did not pursue available remedies such as a review application or an interdict in a timely manner. The court held that the applicants' concerns regarding the administration of the estate were reasonable and bona fide, but the procedural requirements for urgency were not met. The application was removed from the roll, and the costs were ordered to be paid from the estate on a party and party scale, reflecting the...
Court Disposition
Application removed from the roll for lack of urgency; costs to be paid from the estate on a party and party scale.
Orders
- The application is removed from the roll.
- The costs of the application are to be paid from the estate of the late C[…] T[…] M[…], Estate no: 002[…] on a party and party scale.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment