Mokone v Groundbase Professional Land Development Services (Pty) Ltd (64999/2015) [2020] ZAGPPHC 209 (1 April 2020)

Mokone v Groundbase Professional Land Development Services (Pty) Ltd (64999/2015) [2020] ZAGPPHC 209 (1 April 2020)

The court found that the issue raised by the applicant regarding his right to occupy the property had already been finally determined by Unterhalter J in the same case number. The principle of res judicata precludes the court from reconsidering the matter. The court declined to declare the applicant a hostile litigant or interdict him from approaching the court in future, finding that the facts did not amount to extreme abuse of process. The application was dismissed with costs, as the respondent was compelled to defend the matter due to the applicant's actions.

Citation
[2020] ZAGPPHC 209
Parties
Applicant: LC Mokone; Respondent: Groundbase Professional Land Development Services (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Terra Investments Number 8 (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 April 2020
Case Number
64999/2015
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Ex Tempore Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Van der Schyff
Legal Topics
Eviction Order, Res Judicata, Urgent Application, Costs Award
Land and Property Civil Procedure Eviction Order Res Judicata Urgent Application 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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LC Mokone

Applicant

Groundbase Professional Land Development Services (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Terra Investments Number 8 (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Ex Tempore Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant can be evicted from the property he currently occupies.
  2. 2 Whether the issue of the applicant's occupation has already been finally decided by a competent court.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant should be declared a hostile litigant and interdicted from approaching the court on the same facts.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the issue raised by the applicant regarding his right to occupy the property had already been finally determined by Unterhalter J in the same case number. The principle of res judicata precludes the court from reconsidering the matter. The court declined to declare the applicant a hostile litigant or interdict him from approaching the court in future, finding that the facts did not amount to extreme abuse of process. The application was dismissed with costs, as the respondent was compelled to defend the matter due to the applicant's actions.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.