J.R.K v H.E.K (4711/2020) [2021] ZAFSHC 13 (3 February 2021)
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Case number
4711/2020
Judge
DAFFUE, J
The court found that the applicant was unlawfully deprived of possession of the property by the respondent's insertion of keyhole blockers, constituting spoliation. However, the application was not inherently urgent, and the applicant failed to provide sufficient justification for urgency, having neglected to respond to correspondence or issue a letter of demand prior to approaching the court. Both parties contributed to the escalation of the dispute, with the respondent resorting to self-help and the applicant abusing the legal process for tactical advantage. The court held that, while the a…
C and C Restaurant Group (Pty) Ltd and Another v Townsend; Townsend v C and C Restaurant Group (Pty) Ltd (16527/19) [2019] ZAWCHC 141 (29 October 2019)
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Case number
16527/19
Judge
P.A.L. Gamble
The court held that reconsideration under Rule 6(12)(c) is not available to a party who was aware of the urgent application and chose not to oppose it, as the order was granted by default and not ex parte. Both Bailey and the company were properly served, had legal advice, and made a conscious decision not to oppose the provisional liquidation. The company’s commercial insolvency was established on the papers, with substantial debts to creditors and SARS, and a lack of liquid assets. The provisional liquidation order was justified, and no grounds existed for judicial interference or reversal.…