N Kodisang Trust v Mohomane and Others (23662/2018) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1061 (16 August 2023)

N Kodisang Trust v Mohomane and Others (23662/2018) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1061 (16 August 2023)

The court found that the applicant was represented at the hearing where the order was granted, and there was no valid reason for his counsel's absence. The applicant failed to establish that the order was granted by default or in his absence. The applicant did not provide evidence of ownership, as the title deed showed he was not the registered owner. The respondents, being affected persons, had locus standi to seek a stay of eviction. The eviction order was against a different person, and the applicant did not bring proceedings against the second respondent. The application for reconsideration was not substantiated by facts or law. The request for costs de bonis propriis was denied due...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPJHC 1061
Parties
Applicant: N Kodisang Trust; Respondent: Richard Solomon Mohomane & 6 Others
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 August 2023
Case Number
23662/2018
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Reconsideration of Order Under Rule 6(12)(c)
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale.
Judges
Yacoob
Legal Topics
Reconsideration of Order, Eviction Proceedings, Locus Standi, Spoliation Order
Civil Procedure Land and Property Reconsideration of Order Eviction Proceedings Locus Standi Spoliation Order

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

N Kodisang Trust

Applicant

Richard Solomon Mohomane & 6 Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Reconsideration of Order Under Rule 6(12)(c)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was absent or unrepresented when the order was granted on 21 July 2023.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has established grounds for reconsideration of the order staying the eviction.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents had locus standi to seek a stay of eviction.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was represented at the hearing where the order was granted, and there was no valid reason for his counsel's absence. The applicant failed to establish that the order was granted by default or in his absence. The applicant did not provide evidence of ownership, as the title deed showed he was not the registered owner. The respondents, being affected persons, had locus standi to seek a stay of eviction. The eviction order was against a different person, and the applicant did not bring proceedings against the second respondent. The application for reconsideration was not substantiated by facts or law. The request for costs de bonis propriis was denied due...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The application for reconsideration is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay costs on an attorney and client scale.