Shanike Investment v Ndima and Others (22436/2014) [2014] ZAGPJHC 339 (10 September 2014)

Shanike Investment v Ndima and Others (22436/2014) [2014] ZAGPJHC 339 (10 September 2014)

The court held that the orders granted under section 5(1) of PIE were interim in nature and not of final effect. As such, they are not appealable, and the application for leave to appeal is not competent. The respondents failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for their procedural defaults and did not qualify...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] ZAGPJHC 339
Parties
Applicant: Shanike Investment; Respondent: Ndima S & Others
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 September 2014
Case Number
22436/2014
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Interim Eviction/interdict Order
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused.
Judges
Spilg
Legal Topics
Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Interim Eviction, Urgent Interdict, Appealability of Interim Orders
Land and Property Civil Procedure Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Interim Eviction Urgent Interdict Appealability of Interim Orders

Source-derived case record

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

Shanike Investment

Applicant

Ndima S & Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Interim Eviction/interdict Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the interim eviction and interdict orders granted under section 5(1) of PIE are appealable.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents have reasonable prospects of success on appeal regarding the interim orders.
  3. 3 Whether the orders granted were of final effect or merely interim in nature.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the orders granted under section 5(1) of PIE were interim in nature and not of final effect. As such, they are not appealable, and the application for leave to appeal is not competent. The respondents failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for their procedural defaults and did not qualify for protection under section 4(1) of PIE. The facts placed before the court, including admissions by the respondents, justified the interim relief. The urgency and substance of the orders were supported by the evidence, and there were no reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The costs order was abandoned, removing any residual basis for appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is refused.
  • There will be no order as to costs.