O v O (2015/8185) [2017] ZAGPJHC 88 (22 March 2017)

O v O (2015/8185) [2017] ZAGPJHC 88 (22 March 2017)

The applicant failed to establish a clear right to interdict the respondent from conducting business on the property, as ownership is disputed and subject to pending action for a declaration of universal partnership. The applicant previously consented to the business and renovations, and only the local authority has standing to enforce municipal by-laws. No injury or harm was demonstrated, as the applicant owns other properties and the respondent's business supports her and the children. The balance of convenience favours the respondent, as granting the interdict would deprive her and the children of accommodation and maintenance. The applicant has alternative remedies, including pursuing...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPJHC 88
Parties
Applicant: O, R; Respondent: O, I
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 March 2017
Case Number
2015/8185
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Interdict Application
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
M A Makume
Legal Topics
Universal Partnership, Interdict, Ownership Dispute, Childrens Rights, Arbitrary Deprivation of Property, Municipal by Laws
Family and Children Land and Property Civil Procedure Universal Partnership Interdict Ownership Dispute Childrens Rights Arbitrary Deprivation of Property +1 more

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

O, R

Applicant

O, I

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Interdict Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has a clear right to interdict the respondent from conducting business on the property.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's business activities constitute an injury or harm to the applicant.
  3. 3 Whether there is an alternative remedy available to the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish a clear right to interdict the respondent from conducting business on the property, as ownership is disputed and subject to pending action for a declaration of universal partnership. The applicant previously consented to the business and renovations, and only the local authority has standing to enforce municipal by-laws. No injury or harm was demonstrated, as the applicant owns other properties and the respondent's business supports her and the children. The balance of convenience favours the respondent, as granting the interdict would deprive her and the children of accommodation and maintenance. The applicant has alternative remedies, including pursuing...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.