Sasser (Jnr) N.O. and Another v Sasser (Snr) and Others (2024-115325) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1060 (29 October 2024)

Sasser (Jnr) N.O. and Another v Sasser (Snr) and Others (2024-115325) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1060 (29 October 2024)

The court found that the applicants failed to establish sufficient urgency to justify truncating the normal court process. The applicants did not convince the court that they would not be able to obtain redress in due course if the application was not heard urgently. The respondents had already taken steps to address the applicants' concerns, including instructing the tenant to pay rent into the trust account. The existence of ongoing disputes among trustees and the context of a family dispute did not elevate the matter to the level of urgency required for the relief sought. Accordingly, the application was struck from the roll for lack of urgency, with costs reserved.

Citation
[2024] ZAGPPHC 1060
Parties
Applicant: Justus Henry-Carl Sasser (Jnr) N.O.; Applicant: Pieter Hendrik Strydom N.O.; Respondent: Justus Henry-Carl Sasser (Snr); Respondent: Nomthandazo Nokhuthula Valencia Mdhluli; Respondent: Master of the High Court
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 October 2024
Case Number
2024-115325
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application Struck From the Roll for Lack of Urgency
Outcome
Application struck from the roll for lack of urgency; costs reserved.
Judges
E van der Schyff
Legal Topics
Urgency in Motion Court, Trust Property Management, Interdict, Rental Payments, Family Trust Disputes
Civil Procedure Land and Property Urgency in Motion Court Trust Property Management Interdict Rental Payments Family Trust Disputes

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

Parties

Justus Henry-Carl Sasser (Jnr) N.O.

Applicant

Pieter Hendrik Strydom N.O.

Applicant

Justus Henry-Carl Sasser (Snr)

Respondent

Nomthandazo Nokhuthula Valencia Mdhluli

Respondent

Master of the High Court

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application Struck From the Roll for Lack of Urgency

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application should be heard on an urgent basis.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants established that they would not obtain substantial redress in due course if the matter was not heard urgently.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents' conduct regarding trust property justified urgent interdictory relief.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to establish sufficient urgency to justify truncating the normal court process. The applicants did not convince the court that they would not be able to obtain redress in due course if the application was not heard urgently. The respondents had already taken steps to address the applicants' concerns, including instructing the tenant to pay rent into the trust account. The existence of ongoing disputes among trustees and the context of a family dispute did not elevate the matter to the level of urgency required for the relief sought. Accordingly, the application was struck from the roll for lack of urgency, with costs reserved.

Court Disposition

Application struck from the roll for lack of urgency; costs reserved.

Orders

  • The application is struck from the roll due to lack of urgency, with costs on scale B.