Modjela N.O and Another v Engelbrecht N.O and Another (3783/2022) [2025] ZAMPMBHC 56 (18 June 2025)

Modjela N.O and Another v Engelbrecht N.O and Another (3783/2022) [2025] ZAMPMBHC 56 (18 June 2025)

The court found that the applicants failed to establish urgency as required by Rule 6(12)(b), having delayed their application despite early notice of the intended sale. The applicants did not comply with their disclosure obligations under section 26(7) of POCA, nor did they engage constructively with the Curator to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] ZAMPMBHC 56
Parties
Applicant: Derrick Thabo Modjela N.O.; Applicant: Pertunia Pheeha N.O.; Respondent: Johan Francois Engelbrecht N.O.; Respondent: The National Director of Public Prosecutions
Court
Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 June 2025
Case Number
3783/2022
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Opposed Urgent Application for Interim Interdict
Outcome
Application struck off the roll for lack of urgency; punitive costs awarded against applicants.
Judges
JL Bhengu
Legal Topics
Restraint Order, Interim Interdict, Prevention of Organised Crime Act, Fiduciary Duties of Trustees, Urgent Application Requirements, Costs Punitive Order
Civil Procedure Land and Property Criminal Law Restraint Order Interim Interdict Prevention of Organised Crime Act Fiduciary Duties of Trustees Urgent Application Requirements +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Derrick Thabo Modjela N.O.

Applicant

Pertunia Pheeha N.O.

Applicant

Johan Francois Engelbrecht N.O.

Respondent

The National Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Opposed Urgent Application for Interim Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have established urgency justifying departure from normal court procedures.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants are entitled to an interim interdict restraining the sale of the property under a restraint order.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants complied with disclosure obligations under section 26(7) of POCA.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to establish urgency as required by Rule 6(12)(b), having delayed their application despite early notice of the intended sale. The applicants did not comply with their disclosure obligations under section 26(7) of POCA, nor did they engage constructively with the Curator to resolve the matter. Their assertion of irreparable harm was undermined by the existence of a further period for acceptance of tenders and their refusal to discuss alternative means of preserving the property. The court held that the urgency was self-created and that the applicants' misleading statements and omission of material facts constituted an abuse of process....

Court Disposition

Application struck off the roll for lack of urgency; punitive costs awarded against applicants.

Orders

  • The application is struck off the roll for lack of urgency.
  • The applicants are ordered to pay the respondents' costs on an attorney and client scale.