Mphahlele v Boshoff NO and Others (54483/13) [2015] ZAGPPHC 612 (28 August 2015)

Mphahlele v Boshoff NO and Others (54483/13) [2015] ZAGPPHC 612 (28 August 2015)

The court found that the applicant's claims related to the same subject matter and cause of action as previously adjudicated in judgments by De Klerk AJ and Van der Byl AJ, and that leave to appeal had been refused by both the Supreme Court of Appeal and the Constitutional Court. The applicant's attempt to vary the previous judgment under Rule 42 was misconceived, as Rule 42 does not permit substantive alteration of final judgments except for minor errors or ambiguities. The applicant's persistent litigation, despite finality of prior judgments and repeated adverse costs orders, constituted vexatious proceedings. The court upheld the special pleas of res judicata and issue estoppel,...

Citation
[2015] ZAGPPHC 612
Parties
Plaintiff: Matane Edwin Mphahlele; Defendant: Johannes Boshoff N.O.; Defendant: Johanna Jacoba Boshoff N.O.; Defendant: Marinus Johannes Hesselink N.O.; Defendant: Jacobus Albertus Du Plessis N.O.; Defendant: Coenraad Boshoff; Defendant: Johannes Boshoff; Defendant: Tension Overhead Electrification (Pty) Ltd t/a Tractionel Enterprise; Defendant: Africa Heritage Investments (Pty) Ltd (in liquidation); Defendant: The Commissioner, Companies and Intellectual Property Commission, Department of Trade and Industry; Defendant: Mutumwa Dziva Mawere; Defendant: Parmanathan Mariemuthu; Defendant: Nobuhle Gloria Mthethwa; Defendant: ABSA Bank Limited
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 August 2015
Case Number
54483/13
Procedural Posture
Civil Action / Final Judgment
Outcome
The special plea of res judicata is upheld; the plaintiff's claims and applications are dismissed; the applicant is declared a vexatious litigant for five years and barred from further proceedings against specified defendants without leave of court; costs awarded against the applicant on an attorney and own client...
Judges
S. A. M. Baqwa
Legal Topics
Res Judicata, Issue Estoppel, Vexatious Litigation, Variation of Judgment, Shareholder Disputes, Companies Act Proceedings
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Res Judicata Issue Estoppel Vexatious Litigation Variation of Judgment Shareholder Disputes Companies Act Proceedings

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Matane Edwin Mphahlele

Plaintiff

Johannes Boshoff N.O.

Defendant

Johanna Jacoba Boshoff N.O.

Defendant

Marinus Johannes Hesselink N.O.

Defendant

Jacobus Albertus Du Plessis N.O.

Defendant

Coenraad Boshoff

Defendant

Johannes Boshoff

Defendant

Tension Overhead Electrification (Pty) Ltd t/a Tractionel Enterprise

Defendant

Africa Heritage Investments (Pty) Ltd (in liquidation)

Defendant

The Commissioner, Companies and Intellectual Property Commission, Department of Trade and Industry

Defendant

Mutumwa Dziva Mawere

Defendant

Parmanathan Mariemuthu

Defendant

Nobuhle Gloria Mthethwa

Defendant

ABSA Bank Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's claims are barred by res judicata and issue estoppel due to prior judgments.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to a variation of the previous judgment under Rule 42 of the Uniform Rules of Court.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant should be declared a vexatious litigant under the Vexatious Proceedings Act No. 3 of 1956.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's claims related to the same subject matter and cause of action as previously adjudicated in judgments by De Klerk AJ and Van der Byl AJ, and that leave to appeal had been refused by both the Supreme Court of Appeal and the Constitutional Court. The applicant's attempt to vary the previous judgment under Rule 42 was misconceived, as Rule 42 does not permit substantive alteration of final judgments except for minor errors or ambiguities. The applicant's persistent litigation, despite finality of prior judgments and repeated adverse costs orders, constituted vexatious proceedings. The court upheld the special pleas of res judicata and issue estoppel,...

Court Disposition

The special plea of res judicata is upheld; the plaintiff's claims and applications are dismissed; the applicant is declared a vexatious litigant for five years and barred from further proceedings against specified defendants without leave of court; costs awarded against the applicant on an attorney and own client...

Orders

  • The First to Seventh and Twelfth Defendants' special plea of res judicata is upheld.
  • The plaintiff's claims are dismissed.