Schellauf and Another v Mynhardt NO and Others (13854/2000, 382/97, 21139/01,5837/02, A1660/95, 59216/96) [2004] ZAGPHC 6 (9 November 2004)

Schellauf and Another v Mynhardt NO and Others (13854/2000, 382/97, 21139/01,5837/02, A1660/95, 59216/96) [2004] ZAGPHC 6 (9 November 2004)

The applicants were declared vexatious litigants by a valid and unchallenged order, which was duly gazetted. They failed to obtain court approval before instituting further proceedings, as required by section 2 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act. The court is not empowered to revisit the validity of the vexatious litigant declaration, nor to entertain review proceedings against judicial decisions of High Court judges. The Rule 30 applications by the affected parties and respondents are valid, as the applicants' proceedings were irregular and instituted without compliance with statutory requirements. The applicants are not properly before the court, and their application for default judgment...

Citation
[2004] ZAGPHC 6
Parties
Applicant: Rudolf Schellauf; Applicant: Terezia Schellauf; Respondent: The Honourable Mr Justice Mynhardt; Respondent: The Honourable Mr Justice Daniels; Respondent: The Honourable Mr Justice Van der Merwe; Respondent: The Honourable Mr Justice Hartzenberg; Respondent: Rooth & Wessels; Respondent: Attorney A B T van der Hoven; Respondent: Savage Jooste & Adams Inc; Respondent: E Moelich N.O., Deputy Sheriff; Respondent: T C Siebert N.O., Deputy Sheriff; Respondent: Shapiro De Meyer Inc; Respondent: Nicholls, Cabanis & Associates; Respondent: Board of Sheriffs
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 November 2004
Case Number
13854/2000
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Rule 30 Application; Post Vexatious Litigant Declaration
Outcome
Application dismissed; Rule 30 applications by respondents and affected parties granted.
Legal Topics
Vexatious Litigant, Rule 30 Irregular Proceedings, Judicial Review Limitation
Civil Procedure Vexatious Litigant Rule 30 Irregular Proceedings Judicial Review Limitation

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rudolf Schellauf

Applicant

Terezia Schellauf

Applicant

The Honourable Mr Justice Mynhardt

Respondent

The Honourable Mr Justice Daniels

Respondent

The Honourable Mr Justice Van der Merwe

Respondent

The Honourable Mr Justice Hartzenberg

Respondent

Rooth & Wessels

Respondent

Attorney A B T van der Hoven

Respondent

Savage Jooste & Adams Inc

Respondent

E Moelich N.O., Deputy Sheriff

Respondent

T C Siebert N.O., Deputy Sheriff

Respondent

Shapiro De Meyer Inc

Respondent

Nicholls, Cabanis & Associates

Respondent

Board of Sheriffs

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Rule 30 Application; Post Vexatious Litigant Declaration

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants, declared vexatious litigants, could institute proceedings without prior court approval as required by the Vexatious Proceedings Act.
  2. 2 Whether a judicial decision of a High Court judge is reviewable under South African law.
  3. 3 Whether the Rule 30 notices filed by the affected parties and respondents were valid and should be condoned.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants were declared vexatious litigants by a valid and unchallenged order, which was duly gazetted. They failed to obtain court approval before instituting further proceedings, as required by section 2 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act. The court is not empowered to revisit the validity of the vexatious litigant declaration, nor to entertain review proceedings against judicial decisions of High Court judges. The Rule 30 applications by the affected parties and respondents are valid, as the applicants' proceedings were irregular and instituted without compliance with statutory requirements. The applicants are not properly before the court, and their application for default judgment...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; Rule 30 applications by respondents and affected parties granted.

Orders

  • The affected parties' failure to institute the Rule 30(1) application and Rule 30(2)(b) notice within 15 days is condoned.
  • The applicants' application for default judgment directed to the Registrar is set aside as an irregularity.