Webb and Others v South African National Roads Agency Ltd (40106/2012) [2012] ZAGPJHC 214 (29 October 2012)

Webb and Others v South African National Roads Agency Ltd (40106/2012) [2012] ZAGPJHC 214 (29 October 2012)

The court found that the applicants failed to satisfy the requirements for an interim interdict. Their case was inconsistent, as they had previously agreed to the construction of the permanent concrete barriers and now sought to reinstate temporary barriers, amounting to shifting the goal posts. The applicants did not establish a prima facie right to the relief sought, nor did they demonstrate a well-grounded apprehension of harm, as the evidence showed the barriers were effective in preventing accidents. The balance of convenience favoured the public interest in maintaining free-flowing traffic on the N3 Highway over the applicants' individual concerns. The court held that the...

Citation
[2012] ZAGPJHC 214
Parties
Applicant: Judith Mary Webb; Applicant: Investibility 38 (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Jurgens Stephanus Bekker t/a Jurgens Bekker Attorneys; Applicant: Proximity Properties 206 (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: South African National Roads Agency Limited
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 October 2012
Case Number
40106/2012
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interim Interdict Pending Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs on a punitive scale.
Judges
N F Kgomo
Legal Topics
Interim Interdict, Balance of Convenience, Prima Facie Right, Abuse of Process, Road Safety, Urgent Application Requirements
Civil Procedure Land and Property Administrative Law Interim Interdict Balance of Convenience Prima Facie Right Abuse of Process Road Safety +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Judith Mary Webb

Applicant

Investibility 38 (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Jurgens Stephanus Bekker t/a Jurgens Bekker Attorneys

Applicant

Proximity Properties 206 (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

South African National Roads Agency Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interim Interdict Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have satisfied the requirements for an interim interdict pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have established a prima facie right to the relief sought.
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience favours the applicants over the public interest.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to satisfy the requirements for an interim interdict. Their case was inconsistent, as they had previously agreed to the construction of the permanent concrete barriers and now sought to reinstate temporary barriers, amounting to shifting the goal posts. The applicants did not establish a prima facie right to the relief sought, nor did they demonstrate a well-grounded apprehension of harm, as the evidence showed the barriers were effective in preventing accidents. The balance of convenience favoured the public interest in maintaining free-flowing traffic on the N3 Highway over the applicants' individual concerns. The court held that the...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs on a punitive scale.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs on a scale as between attorney and client, jointly and severally, the one paying, the others being absolved.