Mokrane and Another v Bornman and Others [2023] ZAGPPHC 535; 2023-062766 (6 July 2023)

Mokrane and Another v Bornman and Others [2023] ZAGPPHC 535; 2023-062766 (6 July 2023)

The court found that the applicants failed to meet the requirements for urgency under Rule 6(12)(b). The founding affidavit did not adequately address why substantial redress could not be afforded at a hearing in due course. The alleged defamatory statements and information were already in the public domain through attorney correspondence and pending litigation. The applicants did not demonstrate that the Swiss authorities would act on the emails or that irreparable harm would result. As substantial redress is available through ordinary legal remedies, such as a defamation suit, the application was not urgent and was struck from the roll.

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 535
Parties
Applicant: Elvira Ruth Magdalena Mokrane; Applicant: Makhlouf Mokrane; Respondent: Johannes Jurgens Bornman; Respondent: Gottfried Ralph Bornman; Respondent: Elvira Dorothea Bornman
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 July 2023
Case Number
2023-062766
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interdict; Determination of Urgency
Outcome
Application struck from the roll with costs.
Judges
WJ du Plessis
Legal Topics
Urgent Interdict, Substantial Redress, Defamation, Family Dispute
Civil Procedure Urgent Interdict Substantial Redress Defamation Family Dispute

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elvira Ruth Magdalena Mokrane

Applicant

Makhlouf Mokrane

Applicant

Johannes Jurgens Bornman

Respondent

Gottfried Ralph Bornman

Respondent

Elvira Dorothea Bornman

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interdict; Determination of Urgency

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application meets the requirements for urgency under Rule 6(12)(b).
  2. 2 Whether the applicants are entitled to an urgent interdict restraining the respondents from contacting Swiss authorities or disseminating alleged defamatory statements.
  3. 3 Whether substantial redress is available to the applicants in due course.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to meet the requirements for urgency under Rule 6(12)(b). The founding affidavit did not adequately address why substantial redress could not be afforded at a hearing in due course. The alleged defamatory statements and information were already in the public domain through attorney correspondence and pending litigation. The applicants did not demonstrate that the Swiss authorities would act on the emails or that irreparable harm would result. As substantial redress is available through ordinary legal remedies, such as a defamation suit, the application was not urgent and was struck from the roll.

Court Disposition

Application struck from the roll with costs.

Orders

  • The application is struck from the roll, with costs.