Nobre and Another v A Barndard No Trustee and Others (2023/083050) [2024] ZAGPJHC 784 (20 August 2024)

Nobre and Another v A Barndard No Trustee and Others (2023/083050) [2024] ZAGPJHC 784 (20 August 2024)

The court found that the delay in prosecuting the action could not be deemed inexcusable, as the impediments to progress were largely the result of procedural steps taken by the applicants themselves, including the declaration of the third respondent as a vexatious litigant, the requirement for security for costs, and the sequestration of his estate. While the applicants suffered prejudice, it was not so severe as to justify depriving the third respondent of his constitutional right to have his action determined by a court. The court further held that the action was not shown to be abusive or brought for an illegitimate purpose. The legal points raised by the applicants were not untriable...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 784
Parties
Applicant: Rui Migel-Rodrigues Nobre; Applicant: Griffin Investments (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: A Barndard NO Trustee; Respondent: K Keevy NO Trustee; Respondent: Barry Hylton Sneech; Respondent: EXG Investments (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Blue Dot Properties 56 (Pty) Ltd
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 August 2024
Case Number
2023/083050
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Dismiss Action for Abuse of Process and Inexcusable Delay
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Fisher
Legal Topics
Vexatious Litigation, Abuse of Process, Section 38 Companies Act, Delay in Prosecution, Security for Costs
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Vexatious Litigation Abuse of Process Section 38 Companies Act Delay in Prosecution Security for Costs

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 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rui Migel-Rodrigues Nobre

Applicant

Griffin Investments (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

A Barndard NO Trustee

Respondent

K Keevy NO Trustee

Respondent

Barry Hylton Sneech

Respondent

EXG Investments (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Blue Dot Properties 56 (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Dismiss Action for Abuse of Process and Inexcusable Delay

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the action instituted by the third respondent should be dismissed for inexcusable delay and abuse of process.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have suffered serious prejudice due to the delay.
  3. 3 Whether the conduct of the proceedings is abusive and not for the legitimate purpose of furthering the administration of justice.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the delay in prosecuting the action could not be deemed inexcusable, as the impediments to progress were largely the result of procedural steps taken by the applicants themselves, including the declaration of the third respondent as a vexatious litigant, the requirement for security for costs, and the sequestration of his estate. While the applicants suffered prejudice, it was not so severe as to justify depriving the third respondent of his constitutional right to have his action determined by a court. The court further held that the action was not shown to be abusive or brought for an illegitimate purpose. The legal points raised by the applicants were not untriable...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs, such costs to be in terms of scale C and to allow for the costs of two counsel where employed.