Pashut v Klopper (A391/2018) [2019] ZAGPPHC 552 (19 September 2019)

Pashut v Klopper (A391/2018) [2019] ZAGPPHC 552 (19 September 2019)

The court found that the founding affidavit in the ex parte application failed to disclose material facts, particularly the dual directorship of Klopper in SAOU and FINSA, which was relevant to the dispute and could have influenced the decision to grant the protection order. The references to annexures without specifying the harassing content did not meet the requirements of full disclosure. The court held that the duty of utmost good faith in ex parte proceedings was not satisfied, and that material non-disclosure justified setting aside the Harassment Order. As a result, the appeal was upheld and the protection order was set aside without further consideration of whether the conduct...

Citation
[2019] ZAGPPHC 552
Parties
Appellant: Michael Pashut; Respondent: Johannes Christiaan Klopper
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 September 2019
Case Number
A391/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Final Order of Magistrate's Court Under Protection From Harassment Act
Outcome
Appeal upheld; Harassment Order set aside.
Judges
FMM Snyman, LM Molopa
Legal Topics
Ex Parte Applications, Material Non Disclosure, Protection From Harassment Act, Conflict of Interest, School Governance, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Family and Children Commercial and Corporate Ex Parte Applications Material Non Disclosure Protection From Harassment Act Conflict of Interest School Governance +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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Pashut

Appellant

Johannes Christiaan Klopper

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Final Order of Magistrate's Court Under Protection From Harassment Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the founding affidavit in the ex parte application disclosed all material facts required for the granting of a protection order under the Protection from Harassment Act.
  2. 2 Whether failure to disclose material facts in the founding affidavit justified setting aside the Harassment Order.
  3. 3 Whether the conduct described in the founding affidavit substantively amounted to harassment under the Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the founding affidavit in the ex parte application failed to disclose material facts, particularly the dual directorship of Klopper in SAOU and FINSA, which was relevant to the dispute and could have influenced the decision to grant the protection order. The references to annexures without specifying the harassing content did not meet the requirements of full disclosure. The court held that the duty of utmost good faith in ex parte proceedings was not satisfied, and that material non-disclosure justified setting aside the Harassment Order. As a result, the appeal was upheld and the protection order was set aside without further consideration of whether the conduct...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; Harassment Order set aside.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay the appellant's costs.