Moloto Communal Property Association v Tshoane (2017/86589) [2019] ZAGPPHC 325 (19 February 2019)

Moloto Communal Property Association v Tshoane (2017/86589) [2019] ZAGPPHC 325 (19 February 2019)

The court found that the applicant lacked locus standi to bring the application because an administrator had been appointed in terms of the Communal Property Associations Act, and there was no evidence that the administrator had delegated his powers to the interim committee. The court was not satisfied with the applicant's assertion that such delegation had occurred, especially as the administrator himself confirmed no delegation. The court also expressed concern about misleading statements made under oath by the applicant's attorney. As locus standi was not established, the merits of the contempt application were not considered.

Citation
[2019] ZAGPPHC 325
Parties
Applicant: Moloto Communal Property Association; Respondent: Tshoane: Sello Peter
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 February 2019
Case Number
2017/86589
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Motion Court; Application for Contempt
Outcome
Application dismissed for lack of locus standi.
Judges
Mokose
Legal Topics
Locus Standi, Contempt of Court Order, Communal Property Associations Act
Land and Property Civil Procedure Locus Standi Contempt of Court Order Communal Property Associations Act

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 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Moloto Communal Property Association

Applicant

Tshoane: Sello Peter

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Motion Court; Application for Contempt

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant had locus standi to bring the contempt application.
  2. 2 Whether the administrator had delegated powers to the interim committee to act on behalf of the applicant.
  3. 3 Whether the application for contempt could be entertained in light of the applicant's lack of standing.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant lacked locus standi to bring the application because an administrator had been appointed in terms of the Communal Property Associations Act, and there was no evidence that the administrator had delegated his powers to the interim committee. The court was not satisfied with the applicant's assertion that such delegation had occurred, especially as the administrator himself confirmed no delegation. The court also expressed concern about misleading statements made under oath by the applicant's attorney. As locus standi was not established, the merits of the contempt application were not considered.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed for lack of locus standi.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.