Phenyane and Others v RNS Investment (Pty) Ltd and Others (82060/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 316 (25 April 2016)

Phenyane and Others v RNS Investment (Pty) Ltd and Others (82060/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 316 (25 April 2016)

The court found that the applicant failed to take any steps to stay the execution of the eviction order, such as applying for rescission or leave to appeal, before the order was executed. The applicant's reliance on a request for reasons as a basis to stay execution was unfounded in law. Furthermore, the applicant breached previous court orders by making prohibited statements about the respondents and the judiciary and failed to pay taxed costs as ordered. The eviction had already taken place, and the application for interim relief was therefore moot. The applicant's conduct and non-compliance with prior orders disentitled him to the relief sought. The application was dismissed with costs...

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 316
Parties
Applicant: M.A. Phenyane and One Hundred and Seventy Nine Others; Applicant: Ephraim Mathole; Respondent: RNS Investment (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Nazbro Properties (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Sheriff Pretoria West; Respondent: The South African Police Services; Respondent: The Station Commander of the Pretoria Central Police Station, Phukubye; Respondent: The Cluster Commander of the Pretoria Central Police Station, Mthombeni; Respondent: City of Tshwane Metropolitan Police; Respondent: Red Ants
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 April 2016
Case Number
82060/2015
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Interim Relief Following Eviction
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
C Pretorius
Legal Topics
Urgent Interdict, Eviction, Stay of Execution, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Land and Property Urgent Interdict Eviction Stay of Execution Costs Orders

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M.A. Phenyane and One Hundred and Seventy Nine Others

Applicant

Ephraim Mathole

Applicant

RNS Investment (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Nazbro Properties (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Sheriff Pretoria West

Respondent

The South African Police Services

Respondent

The Station Commander of the Pretoria Central Police Station, Phukubye

Respondent

The Cluster Commander of the Pretoria Central Police Station, Mthombeni

Respondent

City of Tshwane Metropolitan Police

Respondent

Red Ants

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Interim Relief Following Eviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to urgent interim relief to prohibit eviction pending appeal or review.
  2. 2 Whether the execution of the eviction order should be stayed due to the applicant's request for reasons.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's failure to comply with previous court orders affects entitlement to relief.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to take any steps to stay the execution of the eviction order, such as applying for rescission or leave to appeal, before the order was executed. The applicant's reliance on a request for reasons as a basis to stay execution was unfounded in law. Furthermore, the applicant breached previous court orders by making prohibited statements about the respondents and the judiciary and failed to pay taxed costs as ordered. The eviction had already taken place, and the application for interim relief was therefore moot. The applicant's conduct and non-compliance with prior orders disentitled him to the relief sought. The application was dismissed with costs...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The application dated 22 April 2016 is dismissed.
  • The applicant, Mr Ephraim Mathole, is ordered to pay the costs of this application including the costs of 23 April 2016 on the attorney and client scale. The costs of 23 April 2016 include the costs of two counsel.