Pitje and Another v Joubert and Another (83409/2015) [2015] ZAGPPHC 988 (10 November 2015)

Pitje and Another v Joubert and Another (83409/2015) [2015] ZAGPPHC 988 (10 November 2015)

The court held that the Vexatious Proceedings Act only prohibits a declared vexatious litigant from instituting proceedings, not from defending or resisting actions brought against them. The first applicant, therefore, did not require leave of court to defend the eviction proceedings. Similarly, the Insolvency Act does not absolutely bar an insolvent from litigating without trustee permission, particularly when appearing in person in eviction matters. The interim interdict and variation order were rendered moot as the eviction had already occurred, and the applicants' attempt to overturn the section 78 order via interim relief was improper. The correct procedure was to pursue the appeal...

Citation
[2015] ZAGPPHC 988
Parties
Applicant: S.M Pitje; Applicant: N. Pitje; Respondent: J.E Joubert; Respondent: Magistrate Francis
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 November 2015
Case Number
83409/2015
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Discharge of Rule Nisi After Interim Interdict and Anticipation Proceedings
Outcome
The rule nisi issued on 15 October 2015 is discharged with costs on the attorney and client scale, including reserved costs, payable jointly and severally by the applicants.
Judges
Ranchod
Legal Topics
Vexatious Litigant, Urgent Interdict, Eviction, Leave to Litigate, Insolvency Permission, Section 78 Magistrates Act
Civil Procedure Land and Property Vexatious Litigant Urgent Interdict Eviction Leave to Litigate Insolvency Permission Section 78 Magistrates Act

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S.M Pitje

Applicant

N. Pitje

Applicant

J.E Joubert

Respondent

Magistrate Francis

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Discharge of Rule Nisi After Interim Interdict and Anticipation Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a person declared a vexatious litigant requires court permission to defend or resist an action or application.
  2. 2 Whether an insolvent requires trustee permission to litigate.
  3. 3 Whether a party anticipating an interim interdict obtained ex parte in the urgent court must seek condonation for non-compliance with Rule 6(12).

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Vexatious Proceedings Act only prohibits a declared vexatious litigant from instituting proceedings, not from defending or resisting actions brought against them. The first applicant, therefore, did not require leave of court to defend the eviction proceedings. Similarly, the Insolvency Act does not absolutely bar an insolvent from litigating without trustee permission, particularly when appearing in person in eviction matters. The interim interdict and variation order were rendered moot as the eviction had already occurred, and the applicants' attempt to overturn the section 78 order via interim relief was improper. The correct procedure was to pursue the appeal...

Court Disposition

The rule nisi issued on 15 October 2015 is discharged with costs on the attorney and client scale, including reserved costs, payable jointly and severally by the applicants.

Orders

  • The rule nisi issued on 15 October 2015 is discharged.
  • Costs are awarded on the scale as between attorney and client, including costs reserved on 16 October 2015.