Preller v Sayman and Others (943/2003) [2004] ZANWHC 11 (3 June 2004)

Preller v Sayman and Others (943/2003) [2004] ZANWHC 11 (3 June 2004)

The court found that it lacked jurisdiction to order the release of the funds held in Gauteng, as the bank account was subject to a court order from the Transvaal Provincial Division and not under its own orders. The applicant was not entitled to amend the Notice of Motion without leave of the court, and the practice of filing an amended notice without such leave was not condoned. Regarding costs, the applicant volunteered to pay the costs for setting aside the sequestration orders, and the court found no justification for a penal costs order against the applicant. However, the applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the third respondent resulting from the ill-founded amended notice of...

Citation
[2004] ZANWHC 11
Parties
Applicant: Johannes Preller; Respondent: Alice Harriet Saayman; Respondent: Steven Anthony Botes; Respondent: Anton Lohse N.O.; Respondent: Master of the High Court, Mmabatho
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 June 2004
Case Number
943/2003
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application to set aside sequestration orders granted; application for release of funds dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; costs awarded against applicant for amended notice of motion.
Judges
R.D. Hendricks
Legal Topics
Sequestration Orders, Jurisdiction, Amendment of Notice of Motion, Costs Award
Civil Procedure Sequestration Orders Jurisdiction Amendment of Notice of Motion Costs Award

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johannes Preller

Applicant

Alice Harriet Saayman

Respondent

Steven Anthony Botes

Respondent

Anton Lohse N.O.

Respondent

Master of the High Court, Mmabatho

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether this court has jurisdiction to order the release of funds held in a bank account outside its area of jurisdiction.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was entitled to amend the Notice of Motion without leave of the court.
  3. 3 Determination of costs liability between the parties.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that it lacked jurisdiction to order the release of the funds held in Gauteng, as the bank account was subject to a court order from the Transvaal Provincial Division and not under its own orders. The applicant was not entitled to amend the Notice of Motion without leave of the court, and the practice of filing an amended notice without such leave was not condoned. Regarding costs, the applicant volunteered to pay the costs for setting aside the sequestration orders, and the court found no justification for a penal costs order against the applicant. However, the applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the third respondent resulting from the ill-founded amended notice of...

Court Disposition

Application to set aside sequestration orders granted; application for release of funds dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; costs awarded against applicant for amended notice of motion.

Orders

  • The provisional and final sequestration orders granted under case number 289/03 are set aside.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the third respondent, including the costs of 11 December 2003.