Voget and 2 Others v Kleynhans (3119/2002) [2002] ZAWCHC 41; 2003 (2) SA 148 (C) (8 August 2002)

Voget and 2 Others v Kleynhans (3119/2002) [2002] ZAWCHC 41; 2003 (2) SA 148 (C) (8 August 2002)

The court held that the cause of action for damages against the defendant, an attorney, forms part of the insolvent estate of the first and second plaintiffs, as it arose prior to their sequestration. However, since the trustee had knowledge of and consented to the institution of the action by the plaintiffs in their own names, and was not prepared to institute proceedings himself, the plaintiffs are entitled, by virtue of their reversionary interest in the estate, to institute the proceedings. The exception raised by the defendant, which sought to deny the plaintiffs locus standi, was therefore not sustainable. The court found that the plaintiffs do have locus standi in the sense of...

Citation
[2002] ZAWCHC 41
Parties
Plaintiff: Dennis Harold Voget and 2 Others; Defendant: Andre Kleynhans
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 August 2002
Case Number
3119/2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Exception to Plaintiffs' Locus Standi
Outcome
Exception dismissed with costs.
Judges
Van Reenen
Legal Topics
Locus Standi, Insolvent Estate, Breach of Contract, Reversionary Interest
Civil Procedure Delict Locus Standi Insolvent Estate Breach of Contract Reversionary Interest

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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dennis Harold Voget and 2 Others

Plaintiff

Andre Kleynhans

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure / Exception to Plaintiffs' Locus Standi

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether first and second plaintiffs, as unrehabilitated insolvents, have locus standi to sue the defendant for damages allegedly suffered prior to their sequestration.
  2. 2 Whether the cause of action forms part of the insolvent estate and thus requires the trustee's involvement.
  3. 3 Whether the exception raised by the defendant is sustainable in law.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the cause of action for damages against the defendant, an attorney, forms part of the insolvent estate of the first and second plaintiffs, as it arose prior to their sequestration. However, since the trustee had knowledge of and consented to the institution of the action by the plaintiffs in their own names, and was not prepared to institute proceedings himself, the plaintiffs are entitled, by virtue of their reversionary interest in the estate, to institute the proceedings. The exception raised by the defendant, which sought to deny the plaintiffs locus standi, was therefore not sustainable. The court found that the plaintiffs do have locus standi in the sense of...

Court Disposition

Exception dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The exception is dismissed with costs.