Motsumi and Another v Mongoloa and Others (2018/20079) [2021] ZAGPJHC 431 (17 September 2021)

Motsumi and Another v Mongoloa and Others (2018/20079) [2021] ZAGPJHC 431 (17 September 2021)

The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion. The applicants did not establish locus standi, as they did not approach the Master of the High Court to determine the executor or administrator of the estate, and their reliance on advice from the Department of Human Settlements did not entitle them to approach the court without proper standing. The constitutional issue regarding costs was not raised in the founding affidavit but only during argument, which the court regarded as an afterthought. Therefore, the normal principle of costs following the result was not displaced. The application for leave to...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPJHC 431
Parties
Applicant: Motsumi Thomas Itumeleng; Applicant: Motsumi David Ramareki; Respondent: Mongoloa Peter; Respondent: Maria Mmamoruakgomo Sefako; Respondent: ABSA Bank Limited; Respondent: E Zulu Prop Investors (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Lerato Virginia Gwala; Respondent: Lawrence Gwala; Respondent: King Gordon Nkosi; Respondent: Mercantile Bank Ltd; Respondent: Greenlight Property Services; Respondent: Wilfred Seme; Respondent: Pulse Affordable Housing; Respondent: The Executor in the Estate of the Late Kelebetse Patricia Legola; Respondent: Standard Bank Limited; Respondent: First National Bank; Respondent: The Director-General: Gauteng Department of Human Settlements; Respondent: The MEC of the Department of Human Settlements; Respondent: The City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality; Respondent: Registrar of Deeds (Johannesburg)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 September 2021
Case Number
2018/20079
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Judgment
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
G Ally
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Locus Standi, Costs Order, Superior Courts Act
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Locus Standi Costs Order Superior Courts 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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Motsumi Thomas Itumeleng

Applicant

Motsumi David Ramareki

Applicant

Mongoloa Peter

Respondent

Maria Mmamoruakgomo Sefako

Respondent

ABSA Bank Limited

Respondent

E Zulu Prop Investors (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Lerato Virginia Gwala

Respondent

Lawrence Gwala

Respondent

King Gordon Nkosi

Respondent

Mercantile Bank Ltd

Respondent

Greenlight Property Services

Respondent

Wilfred Seme

Respondent

Pulse Affordable Housing

Respondent

The Executor in the Estate of the Late Kelebetse Patricia Legola

Respondent

Standard Bank Limited

Respondent

First National Bank

Respondent

The Director-General: Gauteng Department of Human Settlements

Respondent

The MEC of the Department of Human Settlements

Respondent

The City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Registrar of Deeds (Johannesburg)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have demonstrated reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants established locus standi to bring the proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants should be protected from an adverse costs order under the Biowatch principle.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion. The applicants did not establish locus standi, as they did not approach the Master of the High Court to determine the executor or administrator of the estate, and their reliance on advice from the Department of Human Settlements did not entitle them to approach the court without proper standing. The constitutional issue regarding costs was not raised in the founding affidavit but only during argument, which the court regarded as an afterthought. Therefore, the normal principle of costs following the result was not displaced. The application for leave to...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.