Participate in Power Navigate (Pty) Ltd t/a "Pen" v Ngoveni and Another (52995/15) [2015] ZAGPPHC 775 (18 August 2015)
- Citation
- [2015] ZAGPPHC 775
- Status
- Order
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- W. Hughes
- Case number
- 52995/15
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- W. Hughes
- Case number
- 52995/15
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The application was struck off the urgent roll due to lack of urgency and non-compliance with the practice directives. The applicant failed to provide the respondents with adequate time to file answering affidavits and did not ensure that all relevant documents were filed with the Registrar within the required timeframe. Additionally, the applicant did not establish locus standi in its founding affidavit, as it failed to demonstrate ownership or any legal basis for bringing the application. Consequently, the application was dismissed with costs.
Court disposition
Application dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The application is struck off the urgent roll for want of urgency.
- The application is dismissed with costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Participate in Power Navigate (Pty) Ltd t/a "Pen"
ApplicantConride Ngoveni
RespondentThe City of Tshwane Municipality, Pretoria
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Urgent Application / Struck Off Urgent Roll
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the application was urgent and properly enrolled on the urgent roll.
- 02
Whether the applicant complied with the practice directives of the court.
- 03
Whether the applicant established locus standi to bring the application.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant sought urgent relief under section 4(2) of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act, contending that the matter required immediate attention and that service was effected on the respondents in accordance with the Act.
- Respondent
- The respondents argued that the application was not urgent, that insufficient time was provided to file answering affidavits, and that the applicant failed to comply with the practice directives. They further contended that the applicant did not establish locus standi, as it did not show ownership or the basis for bringing the application.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Practice Manual 13.24, paragraphs 8.1 and 8.2
An applicant must comply with the practice directives and provide sufficient time for respondents to answer in urgent applications.
- 02
Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998
An applicant must establish locus standi in its founding affidavit, either by proving ownership or the legal basis for bringing the application.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The application was struck off the urgent roll due to lack of urgency and non-compliance with the practice directives. The applicant failed to provide the respondents with adequate time to file answering affidavits and did not ensure that all relevant documents were filed with the Registrar within the required timeframe. Additionally, the applicant did not establish locus standi in its founding affidavit, as it failed to demonstrate ownership or any legal basis for bringing the application. Consequently, the application was dismissed with costs.
Obiter and limits
- Applicants must strictly adhere to the practice manual when seeking urgent relief.
- Failure to establish locus standi is fatal to an application for eviction under the Act.
Court disposition
Application dismissed with costs.
- The application is struck off the urgent roll for want of urgency.
- The application is dismissed with costs.
Source and reliance status
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Order
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA
Case Number: 52995/15
DATE: 18 AUGUST 2015
In the matter between:
PARTICIPATE IN POWER NAVIGATE (PTY) LTD t/a “PEN".................................APPLICANT
And
CONRIDE NGOVENI............................................................................................1ST
RESPONDENT
THE CITY OF TSHWANE MUNICIPALITY, PRETORIA.............................2ND
RESPONDENT
Coram: HUGHES J
REASON FOR COURT ORDER
Heard on: 21 July 2015
HUGHES J
1. This matter was struck off from the urgent roll on 21 July 2015 for want of urgency with costs.
2. The reasons for the above order is that the applicant failed to follow the practice directive in terms of the practise manual of this division. Less than a day was granted to the respondents to file their answering affidavit.
3. The sequence is as follows; An order was granted in terms of section 4(2) of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998 on 14 July 2015. This notice was served on the respondents on 15 July 2015. The notice of set down was also served on 15 July 2015 for the matter to be heard on 21 July 2015.
4. The first respondent served his notice of intention to defend on 15 July 2015 at 11:00am and its answering affidavit on 17 July 2015 at 12:42pm.
5. In the circumstances the applicant failed to ensure that the documents relevant to the application were filed with the Registrar by 12:00pm Thursday 16 July 2015 for the matter to be heard on Tuesday 21 July 2015 in terms of 8.1, 8.2 of the Practice Manual 13.24. A further reason is that the applicant failed to make out a case in respect of locus standi in its founding affidavit, Neither does the applicant illustrate whether it is the owner or on what premise it has the locus standi to launch this application.
6. For the above reasons the application is dismissed with costs.
W. Hughes Judge of the High Court
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.