---

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG

 

CASE NO: 018293/2022

REPORTABLE: NO

OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO

REVISED.

05/12/2022

 

In the matter between:

 

SORAIA MARIA PESTANA BRANCO                                         MAIN FIRST APPLICANT

 

SONIA MARISSA PESTANA BRANCO AUGUSTO                         SECOND APPLICANT

 

And

 

CARLA CRISTINA PESTANA BRANCO                                          FIRST RESPONDENT

 

CARLA CRISTINA PESTANA BRANCO N.O.                                SECOND RESPONENT

 

ANDRIES VAN JAARSEVELD N.O.                                                 THIRD RESPONDENT

 

CELINA DE JUSUS BRANCO AUGUSO N.O                              FOURTH RESPONDENT

 

THE MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT

FREE STATE DIVISION                                                                     FIFTH RESPONDENT

 

JORGE MANUEL PESTANA BRANCO

AUGUSTO                                                                                         SIXTH RESPONDENT

 

QUILOMBO (PTY) LTD                                                               SEVENTH RESPONDENT

 

 

AND                                                                                            

 

CASE NO: 048805/2022

 

SORAIA MARIA PESTANA BRANCO                                         MAIN FIRST APPLICANT

 

SONIA MARISSA PESTANA BRANCO AUGUSTO                         SECOND APPLICANT

 

And

 

MAUTITUS CROUSE                                                                        FIRST RESPONDENT

 

TRISTAN BRANCO                                                                      SECOND RESPONDENT

 

JUDGMENT

 

Delivered:     This judgment and order was prepared and authored by the Judge whose name is reflected and is handed down electronically by circulation to Parties / their legal representatives by email and by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on Case Lines. The date of the order is deemed to be the 5^th of December 2022.

 

TWALA J

 

[1]        There are two applications that served before this Court on urgent basis. In the first application the applicants sought an order that the respondents be held in contempt of the order granted on the 31^st of August 2022 and other ancillary orders. In the second application the applicants sought an interim order interdicting the respondents from conducting the business of the Diplomat Hotel and other ancillary relief.

 

[2]        These two applications were not properly uploaded on caselines and court on line platforms for hearing on the 29^th of November 2022 – hence the matter was rolled over for hearing to the 30^th of November 2022 to enable the Court to access the documents on these platforms. Furthermore, it was urged by counsel for the applicants that these two applications be heard together for they are intertwined and are based on the same facts. The issues of urgency were not determined on the first day for the Court did not have access to the papers in this case.

 

[3]        Having heard both counsel and having reflected on the case after having reserved the judgment, it became apparent that both applications do not comply with the rules and practice manual of the Court. The contempt of Court application was initiated and enrolled in the urgent Court on the 12^th of October 2022 but was removed from the roll since the applicants chose to await the outcome of another application. The judgment in that application was delivered on the 25^th of October 2022 and that judgment prompted the applicants to bring an application seeking to amend the prayers of its notice of motion which application is opposed by the respondents and is yet to be determined.

 

[4]        With regard to the second application for the interim interdict, the respondents have been operating and conducting the business of the Diplomat Hotel since the 1^st of September 2022. It is disingenuous of the applicants to now approach the Court on urgent basis when they knew for more than two months about the conduct of the respondents. The unavoidable conclusion is that the applications do not comply with the rules and practice manual of this Court. Put in another way, these application falls to be struck from the roll for lack of urgency.

 

[5]        In the circumstances, I make the following order:

 

1.       Both applications in the above case numbers are struck off the roll for lack of urgency;

 

2.       The applicants are to pay the costs of the application including the costs for the day of the 29^th of November 2022.

 

TWALA M L

JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION

 

Date of Hearing:                  29 - 30 November 2022

 

Date of Judgment:               5^th December 2022

 

For the Applicants:              Advocate N Strathern

 

Instructed by:                       Ulrich Roux & Associates

Tel: 011 455 4640

vanessa@rouxlegal.com

 

For the Respondents:         Advocate McTuck

 

Instructed by:                       Remon Gerber Attorneys

Tel: 010 880 7294

remon@remonlaw.co.za

 

---