New Model Projects v Levenbro Centre (Pty) Ltd and Another (2024/019086) [2025] ZAGPJHC 144 (14 February 2025)

New Model Projects v Levenbro Centre (Pty) Ltd and Another (2024/019086) [2025] ZAGPJHC 144 (14 February 2025)

The court found that the applicant failed to establish the requirements for an interim interdict. While a weak prima facie case for ownership was made, the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of ongoing harm or that the balance of convenience favoured granting relief. The applicant's arguments regarding the risk of disposal or burdening of the property were speculative and unsupported by facts. The delay and irregularities in prosecuting the application for leave to appeal further demonstrated a lack of diligence. The court concluded that there was no merit in the appeal and dismissed the application for leave to appeal. Attorney-client costs were awarded against the applicant...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPJHC 144
Parties
Applicant: New Model Projects; Respondent: Levenbro Centre (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Registrar of Deeds
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 February 2025
Case Number
2024/019086
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Urgent Interim Interdict
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with attorney-client costs awarded against the applicant.
Judges
N Manoim
Legal Topics
Interim Interdict, Ownership Dispute, Urgency, Condonation, Costs Award
Civil Procedure Land and Property Interim Interdict Ownership Dispute Urgency Condonation Costs Award

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

New Model Projects

Applicant

Levenbro Centre (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Registrar of Deeds

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Urgent Interim Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has established grounds for leave to appeal against the dismissal of its urgent interim interdict application.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant made out a prima facie case for ownership and the other requirements for an interim interdict.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant demonstrated ongoing harm or balance of convenience justifying interim relief.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to establish the requirements for an interim interdict. While a weak prima facie case for ownership was made, the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of ongoing harm or that the balance of convenience favoured granting relief. The applicant's arguments regarding the risk of disposal or burdening of the property were speculative and unsupported by facts. The delay and irregularities in prosecuting the application for leave to appeal further demonstrated a lack of diligence. The court concluded that there was no merit in the appeal and dismissed the application for leave to appeal. Attorney-client costs were awarded against the applicant...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with attorney-client costs awarded against the applicant.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • The applicant is liable for the first respondent’s costs on an attorney-client scale, including the costs of counsel on Scale B.