Van Den Heever N.O v Mashaba and Others (124034/2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1210 (13 November 2024)

Van Den Heever N.O v Mashaba and Others (124034/2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1210 (13 November 2024)

The court found that the application was urgent, as the disappearance of the Bentley created a real risk of asset dissipation, which would frustrate the preservation order and the Applicant's duties as curator bonis. The Bentley was in the possession of the First Respondent after the preservation order was granted and was purchased with funds from the N & N Family Trust, which is subject to the order. The right of possession and control over the Bentley by the Respondents brought it within the ambit of the preservation order. The Respondents failed to provide adequate information regarding the vehicle's whereabouts, justifying the Applicant's urgent approach. The court rejected the...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPPHC 1210
Parties
Applicant: Theodor Wilhelm Van Den Heever N.O.; Respondent: Noel Mashaba; Respondent: Noel Mashaba N.O.; Respondent: NW Baloyi N.O.; Respondent: Wolfram Carl Helmuth Landgrebe N.O.; Respondent: GG Security (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 November 2024
Case Number
124034/2024
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Opposed Urgent Application Under Rule 6(12) of the Uniform Rules
Outcome
Application granted. The Respondents are ordered to disclose the location of the Bentley and deliver it to the Applicant. Costs awarded against the First to Fourth Respondents on an attorney and client scale.
Judges
Mncube
Legal Topics
Urgent Interdict, Preservation Order, Curator Bonis Appointment, Tax Administration Act Section 163, Asset Dissipation, Attorney and Client Costs
Civil Procedure Tax Law Urgent Interdict Preservation Order Curator Bonis Appointment Tax Administration Act Section 163 Asset Dissipation Attorney and Client Costs

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Theodor Wilhelm Van Den Heever N.O.

Applicant

Noel Mashaba

Respondent

Noel Mashaba N.O.

Respondent

NW Baloyi N.O.

Respondent

Wolfram Carl Helmuth Landgrebe N.O.

Respondent

GG Security (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Opposed Urgent Application Under Rule 6(12) of the Uniform Rules

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application is urgent and justifies deviation from the ordinary rules.
  2. 2 Whether the Bentley Flying Spur Azure V8 falls within the ambit of the preservation order granted on 14 October 2024.
  3. 3 Whether the Respondents are obliged to disclose the location and deliver the Bentley to the Applicant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application was urgent, as the disappearance of the Bentley created a real risk of asset dissipation, which would frustrate the preservation order and the Applicant's duties as curator bonis. The Bentley was in the possession of the First Respondent after the preservation order was granted and was purchased with funds from the N & N Family Trust, which is subject to the order. The right of possession and control over the Bentley by the Respondents brought it within the ambit of the preservation order. The Respondents failed to provide adequate information regarding the vehicle's whereabouts, justifying the Applicant's urgent approach. The court rejected the...

Court Disposition

Application granted. The Respondents are ordered to disclose the location of the Bentley and deliver it to the Applicant. Costs awarded against the First to Fourth Respondents on an attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The form, service and ordinary time periods provided for in the Rules are dispensed with and the matter is dealt with as one of urgency under Rule 6(12).
  • The Respondents are directed to disclose in writing the location of the Bentley Flying Spur Azure V8 with registration number L[...].