About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2009
>>
[2009] ZAGPPHC 343
|
|
Dadabhay and Another v Moosa and Others (10847/08) [2009] ZAGPPHC 343 (23 March 2009)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
NORTH
GAUTENG PRETORIA
Date
heard: 23 March 2009
Case
Number 10847/08
In
the mailer between
AHMED
SULIMAN DADABHAY
First
Applicant
ROCKEYA
SULIMAN DADABHAY
Second
Applicant
and
AKHTER
MOOSA
First
Respondent
FAZILA
DADABHAY PARUK
Second
Respondent
ISMAIL
SULIMAN DADABHAY
Third
Respondent
SAYDA
(AKA SAIDA BANOO)
Fourth
Respondent
DADABHAY
NAFISAH
DADABHAY OMARJEE
Fifth
Respondent
RASHID
SULIMAN DADABHAY
Sixth
Respondent
NORMAD
INVESTMENTS
Seventh
Respondent
THE
REGISTRAR OF DEEDS:
Eighth
Respondent
PRETORIA
THE
MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT:
Ninth
Respondent
PRETORIA
JUDGMENT
LOUW
J
1.
In this case number 10847/08 which was
known as the 'Vlakfontein application’ the second respondent
applied for an order that
the Vlakfontein case be referred to the
same court hearing case number 55836/07 The latter is the case in
which I have just given
judgment and which I have referred to trial
These two applications were heard together on 23 March 2009.
2.
To this application that the cases to be
heard together there is no real opposition Mr Eloff SC for the first
and second applicants
suggested that the costs be reserved However
the second respondent asks that the costs of this application be paid
by the first
respondent Including the costs consequent on the
employment of two counsel.
3.
There was no real opposition to this
application although the attitude of the first respondent could be
described as ambivalent.
The first respondent who is the court -
appointed trustee simply filed a brief opposing affidavit because the
second respondent
sought costs against him.
4.
I am not inclined to grant such costs.
The first respondent is a disinterested party appointed by the court
to attempt to solve
the dispute. He says in his second affidavit in
the 2007 case that he has no interest in the matter nor does he
harbour any fear
of or favour for any of the beneficiaries of the
trust. On his version as it stands he has done what he could to
execute his mandate
and was met by many obstacles.
5.
It is further so that this is a very
simple application which in any event could not have justified the
costs of two counsel.
6.
I do not intents to matte any cost order
in regard to this application
I
therefore order as follows:
1.
In the second respondents application
dated 6 March 2009 I order that this application be hoard
simultaneously by the same court
hearing case number 56836/07 which I
have referred to trial
2.
There is no order as to costs.
A.A
LOUW
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT