Pitje and Another v Joubert and Another (83409/2015) [2015] ZAGPPHC 749 (10 November 2015)

Pitje and Another v Joubert and Another (83409/2015) [2015] ZAGPPHC 749 (10 November 2015)

The court held that the first applicant, although declared a vexatious litigant, was not initiating proceedings but defending against eviction, and thus did not require leave of court to participate. Similarly, as an un-rehabilitated insolvent, he was not absolutely barred from defending eviction proceedings without trustee consent. The main application, which sought to make the rule nisi absolute and restore occupation, was rendered moot as the applicants had already been evicted prior to obtaining the interim order. The court found that the applicants were attempting to circumvent the appeal process by seeking restoration through urgent interim orders, which was not permissible. The...

Citation
[2015] ZAGPPHC 749
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; Costs Order
Outcome
Rule nisi discharged with costs on attorney and client scale, including reserved costs; costs to be paid jointly and severally by the applicants.
Judges
Ranchod
Legal Topics
Vexatious Litigant, Urgent Interdict, Eviction, Section 78 Magistrates Court Act, Insolvency Litigation, Punitive Costs
Civil Procedure Land and Property Vexatious Litigant Urgent Interdict Eviction Section 78 Magistrates Court Act Insolvency Litigation Punitive Costs

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; Costs Order

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 person anticipating an interim interdict obtained ex-parte in the urgent court must seek condonation for non-compliance with Rule 6(12) of the Uniform Rules of Court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the first applicant, although declared a vexatious litigant, was not initiating proceedings but defending against eviction, and thus did not require leave of court to participate. Similarly, as an un-rehabilitated insolvent, he was not absolutely barred from defending eviction proceedings without trustee consent. The main application, which sought to make the rule nisi absolute and restore occupation, was rendered moot as the applicants had already been evicted prior to obtaining the interim order. The court found that the applicants were attempting to circumvent the appeal process by seeking restoration through urgent interim orders, which was not permissible. The...

Court Disposition

Rule nisi discharged with costs on attorney and client scale, including reserved costs; costs to be paid 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.