Strydom N.O and Others v Ndou N.O and Others (10408/2018) [2020] ZAGPPHC 706 (27 November 2020)

Strydom N.O and Others v Ndou N.O and Others (10408/2018) [2020] ZAGPPHC 706 (27 November 2020)

The court found that neither the applicants nor the respondents had properly established locus standi due to deficiencies in the authorising resolutions and affidavits. The urgency of the matter had dissipated, and neither the application nor the answering affidavit was properly before the court. Applying the heightened threshold for leave to appeal under section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act, the court concluded that the applicants failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused.

Citation
[2020] ZAGPPHC 706
Parties
Applicant: Louis Johannes Strydom N.O; Applicant: Johannes Van Tonder N.O; Applicant: Karien Rothman N.O; Applicant: Agustin Equity Management (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Neuro Biz (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Johannes Van Tonder; Applicant: Karien Rothman; Applicant: City of Tshwane; Respondent: Fulufhelo Clyde Ndou N.O; Respondent: Lerato Hilda Ndou N.O; Respondent: Thinawanga Rachael Muvhango N.O; Respondent: The Sheriff Pretoria East
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 November 2020
Case Number
10408/2018
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Full Bench Following Discharge of Rule Nisi
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.
Judges
NV Khumalo
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Locus Standi, Urgent Application, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Locus Standi Urgent Application Costs 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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Louis Johannes Strydom N.O

Applicant

Johannes Van Tonder N.O

Applicant

Karien Rothman N.O

Applicant

Agustin Equity Management (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Neuro Biz (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Johannes Van Tonder

Applicant

Karien Rothman

Applicant

City of Tshwane

Applicant

Fulufhelo Clyde Ndou N.O

Respondent

Lerato Hilda Ndou N.O

Respondent

Thinawanga Rachael Muvhango N.O

Respondent

The Sheriff Pretoria East

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Full Bench Following Discharge of Rule Nisi

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have locus standi to bring the application for leave to appeal.
  2. 2 Whether there are reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion as required by section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act.
  3. 3 Whether the application for leave to appeal should be granted in circumstances where the underlying application was not properly before the court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that neither the applicants nor the respondents had properly established locus standi due to deficiencies in the authorising resolutions and affidavits. The urgency of the matter had dissipated, and neither the application nor the answering affidavit was properly before the court. Applying the heightened threshold for leave to appeal under section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act, the court concluded that the applicants failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is refused.
  • Applicants are ordered to pay the costs jointly and severally, the one to pay the others to be absolved.