Van Ommen v Sheriff of the High Court and Another (54129/2020) [2021] ZAGPPHC 234 (12 April 2021)
The court found that the applicant failed to establish sufficient urgency to justify the matter being heard as an urgent application. The dispute over the property had persisted for several years, and the applicant's reliance on his poor health was not persuasive. The settlement agreement provided a mechanism for...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] ZAGPPHC 234
- Parties
- Applicant: Jan Van Ommen; Respondent: Sheriff of the High Court, Bronkhorstspruit; Respondent: Maria Gezina Van Ommen (born Lamaker)
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 54129/2020
- Procedural Posture
- Urgent Application / Application to Strike From the Roll
- Outcome
- Application struck from the roll with costs.
- Judges
- L I Vorster
- Legal Topics
- Urgent Application, Transfer of Property, Settlement Agreement, Costs Order
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Jan Van Ommen
Applicant
Sheriff of the High Court, Bronkhorstspruit
Respondent
Maria Gezina Van Ommen (born Lamaker)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Strike From the Roll
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application is sufficiently urgent to warrant deviation from normal court procedures.
- 2 Whether the First Respondent should be directed to sign documents on behalf of the Second Respondent to effect transfer of the property.
- 3 Who should bear the costs of the application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to establish sufficient urgency to justify the matter being heard as an urgent application. The dispute over the property had persisted for several years, and the applicant's reliance on his poor health was not persuasive. The settlement agreement provided a mechanism for disposal of the property, and there was no justification for bypassing ordinary procedural rules. Accordingly, the application was struck from the roll with costs.
Court Disposition
Application struck from the roll with costs.
Orders
- The application is struck from the roll with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
CASE NO. 54129/2020
In the matter between:-
JAN VAN OMMEN
APPLICANT
and
SHERIFF OF THE HIGH COURT,
BRONKHORSTSPRUIT
1ST RESPONDENT
MARIA GEZINA VAN OMMEN (born LAMAKER) 2ND RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
VORSTER, LI AJ:-
1. The Applicant approaches the Court on a basis of urgency and claims the following relief:-
"(2) That the First Respondent be directed to sign all documents on behalf of the Second Respondent to effect transfer of the property known as Portion 21 of the Farm No 369, Boschkop, Pretoria, Gauteng Province."
2. The Applicant tenders to pay the costs of the application himself, save if the application is opposed, in which case he claims that the Second
3. Respondent pays the costs.
4. Urgency is in dispute.
5. The Applicant and the Second Respondent were married to each other, but divorced in the Netherlands. The property in question is possessed by them in undivided half shares. A settlement agreement was entered into between the parties at the time of the divorce. That settlement agreement provided for the sale of the property within 3 months by the Applicant and payment to the Second Respondent of an amount which at that stage was agreed. The settlement agreement also provided that, should the property not be sold and transferred within the 3 month period, and it proved to be difficult or impossible to sell it, a process will be followed in terms of RE/MAX lnfoglobe by means of a process referred to in clause 1.5 of the settlement agreement. That provided for the marketing and disposal of the property through the agency of RE/MAX.
6. The point is that the settlement agreement provides for the method to dispose of the joint immovable property and payment of the value of the requisite shares in the property. The Applicant alleges that his health is poor and that that is a reason why the matter is urgent to be disposed of. I am not impressed by that argument. The process of battling over the property in question comes for several years and cannot be said to be urgent at this stage when it was never resolved over a lengthy period of time.
7. In the result of the aforegoing, I am not persuaded that the matter is urgent to be heard as an urgent matter disregarding the usual rules of procedure and the order that I make is the application is struck from the roll with costs.
L I VORSTER, AJ
12 April 2021
Counsel: Applicant J B Cilliers
2nd Respindent N. Terblanche