Radebe v Gama and Another (2010/28436) [2011] ZAGPJHC 199 (8 December 2011)

Radebe v Gama and Another (2010/28436) [2011] ZAGPJHC 199 (8 December 2011)

The court found that the applicant failed to make out a case for any of the relief sought, including rescission of previous costs orders. The applicant did not comply with the requirements of Rule 42, as she was present during the proceedings and the judgments were not erroneously sought or granted. The repeated applications and postponements, coupled with the applicant's refusal or inability to secure legal representation despite opportunities, constituted an abuse of the court's process. The second respondent was entitled to finality, and the ongoing litigation imposed unjustified costs and delays. No legal or factual basis existed for the relief claimed, and the applications were...

Citation
[2011] ZAGPJHC 199
Parties
Applicant: Flora Radebe; Respondent: Phumzile Emily Gama; Respondent: Airports Company of South Africa Ltd
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 December 2011
Case Number
2010/28436
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Judgment After Multiple Postponements and Rescission Applications
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
L M Hodes
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Abuse of Process, Subletting Without Consent, Costs Orders, Rule 42 Application
Civil Procedure Land and Property Rescission of Judgment Abuse of Process Subletting Without Consent Costs Orders Rule 42 Application

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Flora Radebe

Applicant

Phumzile Emily Gama

Respondent

Airports Company of South Africa Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Judgment After Multiple Postponements and Rescission Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant made out a case for the relief sought, including rescission of previous costs orders.
  2. 2 Whether the repeated applications and postponements constituted an abuse of court process.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was entitled to sublet the premises without the second respondent's consent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to make out a case for any of the relief sought, including rescission of previous costs orders. The applicant did not comply with the requirements of Rule 42, as she was present during the proceedings and the judgments were not erroneously sought or granted. The repeated applications and postponements, coupled with the applicant's refusal or inability to secure legal representation despite opportunities, constituted an abuse of the court's process. The second respondent was entitled to finality, and the ongoing litigation imposed unjustified costs and delays. No legal or factual basis existed for the relief claimed, and the applications were...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.