Motlhomi and Others v Stony Lime (Pty) Ltd (UM55/2020; UM176/2020) [2021] ZANWHC 70 (2 November 2021)

Motlhomi and Others v Stony Lime (Pty) Ltd (UM55/2020; UM176/2020) [2021] ZANWHC 70 (2 November 2021)

The Court found that, although the parties to the two applications were not identical, the relief sought was similar and the applicant was the same in both matters. The nature of the relief and the convenience of hearing both matters together justified consolidation. Regarding rescission, the respondents failed to provide a reasonable explanation for their absence, did not establish good cause, and did not demonstrate any bona fide defence or prospects of success. The Court held that the interdict enforced the legal position of law and order, and rescinding an order prohibiting violent acts, intimidation, or harassment would be counter-intuitive. The application for rescission was...

Citation
[2021] ZANWHC 70
Parties
Applicant: Joe (Temeki) Motlhomi; Applicant: Esau Kgokong Morak; Applicant: George (Maki) Motlhale; Applicant: D Moatshe; Applicant: C Moraka; Applicant: Jacob Kerileng Motlhabane; Applicant: Nicolas Tshepo Legogi; Respondent: Stony Lime (Pty) Ltd
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 November 2021
Case Number
UM55/2020; UM176/2020
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Consolidation and Rescission of Judgment
Outcome
The application for consolidation is granted. The application for rescission of the order dated 10 September 2020 is dismissed with costs.
Judges
FMM Snyman
Legal Topics
Consolidation of Actions, Rescission of Judgment, Interdict, Rule Nisi, Mining Rights
Civil Procedure Land and Property Consolidation of Actions Rescission of Judgment Interdict Rule Nisi Mining Rights

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joe (Temeki) Motlhomi

Applicant

Esau Kgokong Morak

Applicant

George (Maki) Motlhale

Applicant

D Moatshe

Applicant

C Moraka

Applicant

Jacob Kerileng Motlhabane

Applicant

Nicolas Tshepo Legogi

Applicant

Stony Lime (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Consolidation and Rescission of Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the matters under case numbers UM55/2020 and UM176/2020 should be consolidated.
  2. 2 Whether the judgment under case number UM55/2020 should be rescinded on the basis that it was erroneously granted in the absence of the respondents.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents have shown good cause and prospects of success for rescission of the judgment.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that, although the parties to the two applications were not identical, the relief sought was similar and the applicant was the same in both matters. The nature of the relief and the convenience of hearing both matters together justified consolidation. Regarding rescission, the respondents failed to provide a reasonable explanation for their absence, did not establish good cause, and did not demonstrate any bona fide defence or prospects of success. The Court held that the interdict enforced the legal position of law and order, and rescinding an order prohibiting violent acts, intimidation, or harassment would be counter-intuitive. The application for rescission was...

Court Disposition

The application for consolidation is granted. The application for rescission of the order dated 10 September 2020 is dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The matters under case numbers UM55/2020 and UM176/2020 are consolidated and heard together.
  • The application for rescission of the order of Hendricks DJP dated 10 September 2020 is dismissed with costs.