Michaels v Firstmile Prop JHB Crown Mines (Pty) Ltd and Another (2024/070685) [2024] ZAGPJHC 604 (28 June 2024)

Michaels v Firstmile Prop JHB Crown Mines (Pty) Ltd and Another (2024/070685) [2024] ZAGPJHC 604 (28 June 2024)

The court found that, even if urgency exists, it is not sufficient to justify a Friday hearing without giving the respondents a fair opportunity to file an opposing affidavit. The applicant's founding affidavit was terse and did not establish sufficient urgency. The respondents are entitled to be heard and the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 604
Parties
Applicant: Annie Dorges Michaels; Respondent: Firstmile Prop JHB Crown Mines (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Take Shape Property Management (Pty) Ltd
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Case Number
2024/070685
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Spoliation Relief
Outcome
Application removed from the roll; costs awarded against the applicant.
Judges
GC Wright
Legal Topics
Spoliation, Urgent Interdict, Possession of Premises
Civil Procedure Land and Property Spoliation Urgent Interdict Possession of Premises

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Annie Dorges Michaels

Applicant

Firstmile Prop JHB Crown Mines (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Take Shape Property Management (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Spoliation Relief

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to urgent spoliation relief for alleged deprivation of possession of the shop premises.
  2. 2 Whether the matter is sufficiently urgent to be heard on a Friday.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents have been afforded a fair opportunity to oppose the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, even if urgency exists, it is not sufficient to justify a Friday hearing without giving the respondents a fair opportunity to file an opposing affidavit. The applicant's founding affidavit was terse and did not establish sufficient urgency. The respondents are entitled to be heard and the matter should not proceed without their input. The application was therefore removed from the roll and costs awarded against the applicant.

Court Disposition

Application removed from the roll; costs awarded against the applicant.

Orders

  • The matter is removed from the roll.
  • The applicants are jointly and severally to pay the respondents’ costs.