Tlou v Ralebipi and Others (65631/2017) [2018] ZAGPPHC 649 (12 April 2018)

Tlou v Ralebipi and Others (65631/2017) [2018] ZAGPPHC 649 (12 April 2018)

The court found that the requirements for res judicata were not satisfied, as the previous application before Davis AJ was dismissed for lack of locus standi and did not finally resolve the issues between the parties. The present application is distinguishable because the applicant now has locus standi following the granting of leave to appeal, and the circumstances have changed with the involvement of the third respondent and the sale of the property. Section 18(1) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 suspends the operation of the forfeiture order, reinstating the applicant's rights as joint owner pending the appeal. The applicant demonstrated urgency due to the first respondent's...

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 649
Parties
Applicant: Kgololesego Keoneng Tlou; Respondent: Solomon Matome Ralebipi; Respondent: Registrar of Deeds; Respondent: Richard Machaba
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 April 2018
Case Number
65631/2017
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interdict Pending Appeal
Outcome
Application granted. Interdict issued pending appeal.
Judges
Msimeki
Legal Topics
Interdict, Res Judicata, Urgent Application, Matrimonial Property, Forfeiture Order
Family and Children Civil Procedure Interdict Res Judicata Urgent Application Matrimonial Property Forfeiture 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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kgololesego Keoneng Tlou

Applicant

Solomon Matome Ralebipi

Respondent

Registrar of Deeds

Respondent

Richard Machaba

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interdict Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defence of res judicata applies to the present application.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has locus standi to seek the interdict pending appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the requirements for an interdict are satisfied in the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the requirements for res judicata were not satisfied, as the previous application before Davis AJ was dismissed for lack of locus standi and did not finally resolve the issues between the parties. The present application is distinguishable because the applicant now has locus standi following the granting of leave to appeal, and the circumstances have changed with the involvement of the third respondent and the sale of the property. Section 18(1) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 suspends the operation of the forfeiture order, reinstating the applicant's rights as joint owner pending the appeal. The applicant demonstrated urgency due to the first respondent's...

Court Disposition

Application granted. Interdict issued pending appeal.

Orders

  • The matter is declared urgent in terms of Rule 6(12) of the Uniform Rules of Court.
  • Pending the determination and finalisation of the appeal, the first respondent is interdicted and restrained from selling, disposing of, or dissipating any assets forming part of the joint estate.