Monakane and Others v Roberts and Others (2822/2003) [2003] ZAFSHC 24 (9 October 2003)

Monakane and Others v Roberts and Others (2822/2003) [2003] ZAFSHC 24 (9 October 2003)

The court held that the applicants had already failed to establish a right to a postponement of the disciplinary appeal hearings in the earlier application before Rampai J. That judgment stands until set aside on appeal, and the applicants cannot now seek an interim interdict to protect a non-existent right. Furthermore, the applicants did not demonstrate that they would suffer irreparable harm if the disciplinary appeals proceeded; rather, they might benefit from the opportunity to present new evidence. The application was found to be frivolous, vexatious, and bordering on abuse of process. Accordingly, the application was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2003] ZAFSHC 24
Parties
Applicant: TM Monakane & 6 Others; Respondent: JC Roberts & 2 Others
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 October 2003
Case Number
2822/2003
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Interim Interdict Pending Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
HM Musi
Legal Topics
Interim Interdict, Prima Facie Right, Postponement of Disciplinary Hearing, Leave to Appeal
Civil Procedure Interim Interdict Prima Facie Right Postponement of Disciplinary Hearing Leave to Appeal

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

TM Monakane & 6 Others

Applicant

JC Roberts & 2 Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Interim Interdict Pending Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have a prima facie right to a postponement of disciplinary appeal hearings pending the outcome of their application for leave to appeal.
  2. 2 Whether an interim interdict can be granted to protect a right previously found not to exist.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants would suffer irreparable harm if the disciplinary appeals proceed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicants had already failed to establish a right to a postponement of the disciplinary appeal hearings in the earlier application before Rampai J. That judgment stands until set aside on appeal, and the applicants cannot now seek an interim interdict to protect a non-existent right. Furthermore, the applicants did not demonstrate that they would suffer irreparable harm if the disciplinary appeals proceeded; rather, they might benefit from the opportunity to present new evidence. The application was found to be frivolous, vexatious, and bordering on abuse of process. Accordingly, the application was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.