Tankard v Old Mutual Wealth (2024/096858) [2024] ZAGPJHC 911 (10 September 2024)
- Citation
- [2024] ZAGPJHC 911
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Panel
- GC Wright
- Case number
- 2024/096858
More details
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Panel
- GC Wright
- Case number
- 2024/096858
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the applicant failed to establish urgency. Her allegations regarding her financial position and the risk of homelessness were vague and unsupported by evidence. No details were provided to substantiate her inability to obtain alternative accommodation or why the matter required urgent attention. As urgency was not proved, the court declined to consider the merits of the application or the respondent's other defences, including the citation of the wrong respondent. The application was struck off the roll and costs were reserved.
Court disposition
Application struck off the roll for lack of urgency; costs reserved.
Orders
- The application is struck off the roll.
- Costs are reserved.
02
Material facts
Parties
Rosann Maureen Tankard
Applicant Counsel: Mr A.S MaraisOld Mutual Wealth
Respondent Counsel: Adv LM Spiller03
Procedural history
Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Compel Disclosure and Payment; Struck Off for Lack of Urgency
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the application is urgent and should be heard on an urgent basis.
- 02
Whether the applicant is entitled to disclosure of policy details and payment of proceeds from the respondent.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant contends that she urgently requires disclosure of all policies held by her late husband from the respondent and payment of the proceeds, claiming that without the funds she will be homeless. She asserts her recent appointment as executrix of the deceased estate but provides no detailed evidence of her financial position or inability to secure alternative accommodation.
- Respondent
- The respondent raises several defences, including that the wrong respondent has been cited. However, the respondent's primary argument is that the application lacks urgency, as the applicant has failed to provide sufficient detail to justify urgent relief.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Rule 6(12) Uniform Rules of Court
Urgency must be established with clear facts demonstrating why the matter cannot wait for the ordinary court process.
- 02
Luna Meubel Vervaardigers (Edms) Bpk v Makin and Another (1977 (4) SA 135 (W))
An applicant seeking urgent relief must set out facts supporting the urgency and inability to obtain substantial redress at a later stage.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to establish urgency. Her allegations regarding her financial position and the risk of homelessness were vague and unsupported by evidence. No details were provided to substantiate her inability to obtain alternative accommodation or why the matter required urgent attention. As urgency was not proved, the court declined to consider the merits of the application or the respondent's other defences, including the citation of the wrong respondent. The application was struck off the roll and costs were reserved.
Obiter and limits
- Applicants must provide specific and detailed evidence when seeking urgent relief; vague assertions are insufficient.
- The court did not address the respondent's defence regarding citation, as the lack of urgency was dispositive.
Court disposition
Application struck off the roll for lack of urgency; costs reserved.
- The application is struck off the roll.
- Costs are reserved.
Source and reliance status
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION,
JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO: 2024/096858
1. Reportable
2. Of interest to other judges:
3. Revised:
10 September 2024
In the matter between:
ROSANN
MAUREEN TANKARD Applicant and
OLD
MUTUAL WEALTH Respondent
JUDGMENT
WRIGHT J
1. The alleged applicant lost her husband ten years ago, allegedly.
2. She was allegedly appointed executrix in his deceased estate about three months ago.
3. The applicant seeks urgently orders that the respondent disclose to her details of all policies held by her husband and she seeks payment of the proceeds.
4. She says, vaguely, that she needs the money otherwise she will be homeless.
5. No detail of her financial position is set out or her alleged inability to get other accommodation.
6. The answering affidavit raises a number of defences, including a defence that the wrong respondent has been cited, which I need not deal with as urgency is not proved.
ORDER
Struck off, costs reserved. -
GC Wright
Judge of the High Court
Gauteng Division, Johannesburg
HEARD
DELIVERED :10 September 2024 :10 September 2024 APPEARANCES: Applicant Att. Mr A.S Marais laurencemelatoinc@gmail.com 016 421 1215/6 Instructed by Lawrence Melato Inc Attorneys Lawrencemelatoinc@gmail.com 016 421 1329 Respondent Adv LM Spiller spiller@counsel.co.za 079 873 7397 Instructed by Walker Inc amienh@walkers.law 012 464 1400
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.