H.C.C and Another v N.E.M and Others (Reasons) (1790/2023)
H.C.C and Another v N.E.M and Others (Reasons) (1790/2023) [2025] ZALMPTHC 12 (25 July 2025)
The court found that the applicant did not abuse the court process by requesting a virtual hearing, as the allocation was within the judicial functions of the Judge President. The applicant demonstrated urgency by acting immediately after the vehicle's attachment and provided sufficient explanation that substantial redress would not be available if the vehicle was sold before the pending applications were resolved. The court held that the applicant met the requirements for an interdict: he had a clear right to his property, faced irreparable harm due to the disproportionate value of the vehic…
Source excerpt
- Urgent Interdict
- Maintenance Order
- Rule 43 Application
- Fraudulent Court Order
- Child Paternity Dispute