Somo and Others v Thonts Properties (Pty) Ltd and Others (2023-114895) [2025] ZAGPPHC 88 (10 February 2025)

Somo and Others v Thonts Properties (Pty) Ltd and Others (2023-114895) [2025] ZAGPPHC 88 (10 February 2025)

The court found that the urgency alleged by the applicants was not self-created and entertained the application as urgent. However, the first applicant failed to demonstrate apprehended harm and lacked legal standing to seek a stay of ejectment, as the property did not form part of the estate she administers. The other applicants did not confirm their participation and, being majors, must act in their own right. The property was divested from the estate in 2004, long before the first applicant's appointment as executrix. The application was dismissed for lack of legal standing, and costs were awarded against the first applicant.

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 88
Parties
Applicant: Nomathemba Adolphina Somo; Applicant: Sebina Lindiwe Silinga; Applicant: Sibusiso Phakathi; Applicant: Thandiwe Jabulile Phakathi; Respondent: Thonts Properties (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Ngomane Sizwe James; Respondent: Manzini Patricia Thandy; Respondent: Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 February 2025
Case Number
2023-114895
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Stay of Ejectment Pending Rescission
Outcome
Application dismissed for lack of legal standing; costs awarded against the first applicant.
Judges
GN Moshoana
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Legal Standing, Urgent Interdict, Administration of Estates Act, Ejectment Order
Civil Procedure Land and Property Stay of Execution Legal Standing Urgent Interdict Administration of Estates Act Ejectment Order

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nomathemba Adolphina Somo

Applicant

Sebina Lindiwe Silinga

Applicant

Sibusiso Phakathi

Applicant

Thandiwe Jabulile Phakathi

Applicant

Thonts Properties (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Ngomane Sizwe James

Respondent

Manzini Patricia Thandy

Respondent

Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Stay of Ejectment Pending Rescission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for a stay of ejectment should be entertained as urgent.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have legal standing to seek a stay of ejectment.
  3. 3 Whether the property forms part of the estate administered by the first applicant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the urgency alleged by the applicants was not self-created and entertained the application as urgent. However, the first applicant failed to demonstrate apprehended harm and lacked legal standing to seek a stay of ejectment, as the property did not form part of the estate she administers. The other applicants did not confirm their participation and, being majors, must act in their own right. The property was divested from the estate in 2004, long before the first applicant's appointment as executrix. The application was dismissed for lack of legal standing, and costs were awarded against the first applicant.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed for lack of legal standing; costs awarded against the first applicant.

Orders

  • The application is entertained as one of urgency.
  • The application is dismissed.