Reeds and Another v May N.O and Others (Reasons) (55603/2018) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1145 (12 September 2023)

Reeds and Another v May N.O and Others (Reasons) (55603/2018) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1145 (12 September 2023)

The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate the existence of a valid pending application for leave to appeal, as they did not submit the required transcript for reasons as requested by the court. The applicants were aware of the sequestration order and did not comply with the procedural requirements for late filing. The attempt to join an additional co-trustee and seek an order against all parties was refused as it would contravene the audi alteram partem rule. The applicants also failed to properly serve the fifth respondent. Consequently, the application for an interim interdict was dismissed, and the applicants were ordered to pay wasted costs on an attorney-client scale.

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 1145
Parties
Applicant: Moses Reeds; Applicant: Althea Marilyn Reeds; Respondent: Leonnie May N.O.; Respondent: Leonne Annbelle May; Respondent: Tracy Hill N.O.
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 September 2023
Case Number
55603/2018
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Interdict Pending Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs on attorney-client scale.
Judges
P J M Mogotsi
Legal Topics
Interim Interdict, Leave to Appeal, Service of Process, Audi Alteram Partem, Sequestration
Civil Procedure Land and Property Interim Interdict Leave to Appeal Service of Process Audi Alteram Partem Sequestration

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Moses Reeds

Applicant

Althea Marilyn Reeds

Applicant

Leonnie May N.O.

Respondent

Leonne Annbelle May

Respondent

Tracy Hill N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interim Interdict Pending Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a valid pending application for leave to appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to an interim interdict preventing transfer of the immovable property.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant complied with service requirements under the Uniform Rules of Court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate the existence of a valid pending application for leave to appeal, as they did not submit the required transcript for reasons as requested by the court. The applicants were aware of the sequestration order and did not comply with the procedural requirements for late filing. The attempt to join an additional co-trustee and seek an order against all parties was refused as it would contravene the audi alteram partem rule. The applicants also failed to properly serve the fifth respondent. Consequently, the application for an interim interdict was dismissed, and the applicants were ordered to pay wasted costs on an attorney-client scale.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs on attorney-client scale.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the wasted costs on attorney-client scale.