Pretorius and Another v Du Preez and Another (6468/24) [2024] ZAMPMHC 70 (19 December 2024)

Pretorius and Another v Du Preez and Another (6468/24) [2024] ZAMPMHC 70 (19 December 2024)

The court found that the applicants failed to establish grounds justifying urgency. The professional reports submitted did not sufficiently link the health condition of the second applicant to the current nuisance caused by the respondents' dogs, with only one report making a tenuous connection. The court held that there was no evidence of a life-threatening condition or circumstances warranting deviation from normal procedures. The applicants did not demonstrate that substantial redress could not be obtained in due course, and the alternative remedy of contempt was inapplicable as the respondents were not parties to the previous order. Accordingly, the application was struck off the roll...

Citation
[2024] ZAMPMHC 70
Parties
Applicant: Marthinus Willem Pretorius; Applicant: Heleen Pretorius; Respondent: Chantell du Preez; Respondent: Daniel Jacobus Landman
Court
Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 December 2024
Case Number
6468/24
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Strike Off Roll for Lack of Urgency
Outcome
Application struck off the roll for lack of urgency; costs awarded against applicants.
Judges
Malangeni
Legal Topics
Urgency in Motion Proceedings, Nuisance, Noise Pollution, Interim Protection Order
Civil Procedure Land and Property Urgency in Motion Proceedings Nuisance Noise Pollution Interim Protection Order

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marthinus Willem Pretorius

Applicant

Heleen Pretorius

Applicant

Chantell du Preez

Respondent

Daniel Jacobus Landman

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Strike Off Roll for Lack of Urgency

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application qualifies to be heard on an urgent basis.
  2. 2 Whether the barking of the respondents' dogs constitutes a legal nuisance justifying urgent relief.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants have established a link between the alleged nuisance and the health of the second applicant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to establish grounds justifying urgency. The professional reports submitted did not sufficiently link the health condition of the second applicant to the current nuisance caused by the respondents' dogs, with only one report making a tenuous connection. The court held that there was no evidence of a life-threatening condition or circumstances warranting deviation from normal procedures. The applicants did not demonstrate that substantial redress could not be obtained in due course, and the alternative remedy of contempt was inapplicable as the respondents were not parties to the previous order. Accordingly, the application was struck off the roll...

Court Disposition

Application struck off the roll for lack of urgency; costs awarded against applicants.

Orders

  • The application is struck off the roll due to lack of urgency.
  • Applicants are ordered to pay costs of this application on scale B, the one paying the other to be absolved from paying.