Hazel Alder Trading Propriatary Limited and Another v African Bush Investments CC and Others (642/2020) [2020] ZAECGHC 96 (28 August 2020)

Hazel Alder Trading Propriatary Limited and Another v African Bush Investments CC and Others (642/2020) [2020] ZAECGHC 96 (28 August 2020)

The court found that the refusal of an interim interdict is a final order and thus appealable, relying on established precedent. The judge was not persuaded by the respondent's argument that such refusal is not appealable, noting that the relevant dictum in Knox D’Arcy Ltd and Others v Jamieson and Others remains good law. Regarding prospects of success, the court held that it could not conclude there were no reasonable prospects that the appellate court might find the applicants had locus standi and had met the requirements for an interim interdict. Consequently, the requirements for leave to appeal under Section 17 of the Superior Courts Act were satisfied.

Citation
[2020] ZAECGHC 96
Parties
Applicant: Hazel Alder Trading Propriatary Limited; Applicant: BF Ventures Limited; Respondent: African Bush Investments CC; Respondent: Custocel Proprietary Limited; Respondent: Makana Municipality; Respondent: CM Heunis Construction CC
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 August 2020
Case Number
642/2020
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Interim Interdict
Outcome
Leave to appeal is granted to the Full Bench of the Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown. Costs to be costs in the appeal.
Judges
NG Beshe
Legal Topics
Locus Standi, Interim Interdict, Leave to Appeal, Shareholder Rights, Just Administrative Action
Civil Procedure Land and Property Locus Standi Interim Interdict Leave to Appeal Shareholder Rights Just Administrative Action

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hazel Alder Trading Propriatary Limited

Applicant

BF Ventures Limited

Applicant

African Bush Investments CC

Respondent

Custocel Proprietary Limited

Respondent

Makana Municipality

Respondent

CM Heunis Construction CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Interim Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants, as shareholders, have locus standi to seek an interim interdict regarding property owned by the second respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the refusal of an interim interdict is appealable under South African law.
  3. 3 Whether the requirements for granting leave to appeal under Section 17 of the Superior Courts Act are satisfied.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the refusal of an interim interdict is a final order and thus appealable, relying on established precedent. The judge was not persuaded by the respondent's argument that such refusal is not appealable, noting that the relevant dictum in Knox D’Arcy Ltd and Others v Jamieson and Others remains good law. Regarding prospects of success, the court held that it could not conclude there were no reasonable prospects that the appellate court might find the applicants had locus standi and had met the requirements for an interim interdict. Consequently, the requirements for leave to appeal under Section 17 of the Superior Courts Act were satisfied.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal is granted to the Full Bench of the Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown. Costs to be costs in the appeal.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal against the judgment and order is granted to the Full Bench of this Division.
  • Costs to be costs in the appeal.