Omar and Another v Minister of Safety and Security and Others (24868/2006) [2014] ZAGPPHC 325 (30 May 2014)

Omar and Another v Minister of Safety and Security and Others (24868/2006) [2014] ZAGPPHC 325 (30 May 2014)

The application for variation of the previous court order is dismissed. The applicants failed to meet the jurisdictional requirements for variation under Rule 42, as they did not address whether the order was erroneously sought, contained an ambiguity, or was granted due to a common mistake. The application was brought nearly seven years after the original order, contrary to the principle that such applications should be made expeditiously. The applicants should have foreseen a dispute of fact regarding the value of the goods and proceeded by way of action or sought referral to oral evidence at an earlier stage. The court cannot award damages on affidavit where the value is contested....

Citation
[2014] ZAGPPHC 325
Parties
Applicant: S.C. Omar; Applicant: Superspeed CC; Respondent: Minister of Safety and Security; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions; Respondent: Inspector Skip van der Merwe
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 May 2014
Case Number
24868/2006
Procedural Posture
Variation Application / Application for Variation of Previous Court Order
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Hiemstra
Legal Topics
Variation of Court Order, Motion Proceedings, Return of Seized Goods, Damages on Affidavit, Contempt of Court
Civil Procedure Criminal Law Variation of Court Order Motion Proceedings Return of Seized Goods Damages on Affidavit Contempt of Court

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S.C. Omar

Applicant

Superspeed CC

Applicant

Minister of Safety and Security

Respondent

Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Inspector Skip van der Merwe

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Variation Application / Application for Variation of Previous Court Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to a variation of the previous court order to allow for oral evidence on the value of goods not returned.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents are in contempt of the previous court order for failing to return the goods.
  3. 3 Whether damages can be awarded on affidavit where the value of goods is disputed.

Ratio Decidendi

The application for variation of the previous court order is dismissed. The applicants failed to meet the jurisdictional requirements for variation under Rule 42, as they did not address whether the order was erroneously sought, contained an ambiguity, or was granted due to a common mistake. The application was brought nearly seven years after the original order, contrary to the principle that such applications should be made expeditiously. The applicants should have foreseen a dispute of fact regarding the value of the goods and proceeded by way of action or sought referral to oral evidence at an earlier stage. The court cannot award damages on affidavit where the value is contested....

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.