Van Der Merwe and Others v Nel N.O and Others - Urgency (2483/2023) [2023] ZAECMKHC 86 (11 August 2023)

Van Der Merwe and Others v Nel N.O and Others - Urgency (2483/2023) [2023] ZAECMKHC 86 (11 August 2023)

The court found that the applicants failed to establish genuine urgency, as their delay in instituting proceedings and duplicating relief already sought in previous extant litigation amounted to self-created urgency. The timeline of events demonstrated that applicants had ample opportunity to act but chose not to, and their inactivity undermined any claim to urgent relief. The review of the Master's decisions was not brought within the time limits prescribed by PAJA, and no application for condonation or extension was made. The timetable imposed on respondents was unreasonable and oppressive, disregarding the interests of justice and the efficient administration of the court. The...

Citation
[2023] ZAECMKHC 86
Parties
Applicant: Werner Van Der Merwe; Applicant: Eleanor Van Der Merwe; Applicant: Dorothea Anna Van Der Merwe; Applicant: Jaco Van Der Merwe; Applicant: Andrea Greyling; Respondent: Ilze Dalene Nel N.O.; Respondent: Magda Christine Pelser; Respondent: Anita Jacoline Greeff; Respondent: Vivian Stephen Van Der Merwe; Respondent: The Master of the High Court, Makhanda; Respondent: Andries Keun; Respondent: The Registrar of Deeds, Kimberley
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 August 2023
Case Number
2483/2023
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interdict and Review; Determination of Urgency
Outcome
Application struck off the roll for lack of urgency; costs awarded against first and second applicants.
Judges
Rugunanan
Legal Topics
Urgency in Motion Proceedings, Administrative Action Review, Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Estate Administration, Interdictory Relief
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Urgency in Motion Proceedings Administrative Action Review Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Estate Administration Interdictory Relief

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Werner Van Der Merwe

Applicant

Eleanor Van Der Merwe

Applicant

Dorothea Anna Van Der Merwe

Applicant

Jaco Van Der Merwe

Applicant

Andrea Greyling

Applicant

Ilze Dalene Nel N.O.

Respondent

Magda Christine Pelser

Respondent

Anita Jacoline Greeff

Respondent

Vivian Stephen Van Der Merwe

Respondent

The Master of the High Court, Makhanda

Respondent

Andries Keun

Respondent

The Registrar of Deeds, Kimberley

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interdict and Review; Determination of Urgency

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants established sufficient urgency to justify deviation from court rules for urgent relief.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants' delay in instituting proceedings constituted self-created urgency.
  3. 3 Whether the review of the Master's decisions regarding the sale of estate properties was brought within the time limits prescribed by PAJA.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to establish genuine urgency, as their delay in instituting proceedings and duplicating relief already sought in previous extant litigation amounted to self-created urgency. The timeline of events demonstrated that applicants had ample opportunity to act but chose not to, and their inactivity undermined any claim to urgent relief. The review of the Master's decisions was not brought within the time limits prescribed by PAJA, and no application for condonation or extension was made. The timetable imposed on respondents was unreasonable and oppressive, disregarding the interests of justice and the efficient administration of the court. The...

Court Disposition

Application struck off the roll for lack of urgency; costs awarded against first and second applicants.

Orders

  • The matter is struck off the roll.
  • The first and second applicants, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay the costs of the first and sixth respondents on an attorney and client scale.