Molete and Another v Molete and Others (A1044/13) [2016] ZAGPPHC 241 (20 April 2016)

Molete and Another v Molete and Others (A1044/13) [2016] ZAGPPHC 241 (20 April 2016)

The court held that it is not appropriate to interfere with the contractual relationship between the sheriff and the instructing attorney. The sheriff is entitled to retain the vehicles until his fees are paid, and the respondents' attorney is entitled to remuneration for work performed prior to the hearing, including disbursements and instructing counsel. The proposed orders to compel the sheriff to release the vehicles and to require the attorney to forfeit fees were rejected as unnecessary and impermissible intrusions into contractual and confidential relationships. The court also clarified that an ex parte order is not always susceptible to rescission under rule 42, and that...

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 241
Parties
Appellant: Tryphena Molete; Appellant: Tryphena Molete NO; Respondent: Daniel Molete; Respondent: Daniel Molete NO; Respondent: Joseph Molete; Respondent: Mohayabo Moses Molete; Respondent: William Molete; Respondent: Joy Mphele Raphesu; Respondent: Eva Molete; Respondent: Agnes Molete
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 April 2016
Case Number
A1044/13
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.
Judges
T.M. Makgoka
Legal Topics
Sheriff Right of Retention, Attorney Client Fees, Ex Parte Orders, Rescission of Judgment
Civil Procedure Sheriff Right of Retention Attorney Client Fees Ex Parte Orders Rescission of Judgment

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tryphena Molete

Appellant

Tryphena Molete NO

Appellant

Daniel Molete

Respondent

Daniel Molete NO

Respondent

Joseph Molete

Respondent

Mohayabo Moses Molete

Respondent

William Molete

Respondent

Joy Mphele Raphesu

Respondent

Eva Molete

Respondent

Agnes Molete

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sheriff is entitled to retain attached vehicles pending payment of storage fees.
  2. 2 Whether the court should order the sheriff to release vehicles without payment of fees.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents' attorney should forfeit fees for non-attendance at the hearing.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that it is not appropriate to interfere with the contractual relationship between the sheriff and the instructing attorney. The sheriff is entitled to retain the vehicles until his fees are paid, and the respondents' attorney is entitled to remuneration for work performed prior to the hearing, including disbursements and instructing counsel. The proposed orders to compel the sheriff to release the vehicles and to require the attorney to forfeit fees were rejected as unnecessary and impermissible intrusions into contractual and confidential relationships. The court also clarified that an ex parte order is not always susceptible to rescission under rule 42, and that...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.