SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in
compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO: 051740/2025
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED: NO
(4) Date: 05 May 2025
Signature:
In the matter between:
ANTON TALJAARD Applicant
And
AAR ON STANG ER N.O. First Respondent
SINQUMILE NQOBANI NJONGWE MKHWANAZI -SIGEGE N.O. Second Respondent
GEORGE WERNER Third Respondent
JAN VAN VUUREN Fourth Respondent
THE DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES, FORESTRY AND Fifth Respondent
THE ENVIRONMENT
JUDGMENT
NYATHI J
A. INTRODUCTION
[1] The applicant is seeking an urgent order to interdict the removal and
transporting of a collection of 289 rare cycads which he purchased from a
deceased estate.
[2] The applicant contends that he purchased the cycads and holds the necessary
permits to remove and transport them and the competing purchaser does not
hold the necessary permits, and thus the purchase and transporting will
consequently be unlawful.1
[3] The first and second respondents are the Executors of the deceased estate ,
while the third respondent is the person to whom the Executors now say they
have sold the cycads.
[4] The fourth respondent is the agent who represented the Executors when
selling the cycads to the applicant and later purported to sell them to the third
respondent.
[5] The fifth respondent is the provincial department in charge of issuing the
permits required to buy and sell as well as transport the cycads.
[6] This application has not been served on the third respondent because the
Executors have refused to provide his contact details. It is for this reason that
an order is sought directing the Executors to provide the details of the third
respondent, and for the applicant to thereafter serve this application on the
third respondent.
1 Applicant’s founding affidavit para 18.
[7] The order sought at this stage is to preserve the status quo. In part A2 of this
application an interdict will be sought that will operate pending the finalisation
of the dispute about whether the applicant has an enforceable contract to
purchase the cycads.
[8] The chronology that led to this part of the urgent application is the following:
1. In the late afternoon of Wednesday 9 April 2025, the applicant
discovered that the cycads have been prepared for transporting. This
follows on engagements between the applicant's attorneys and the
first and second respondents' attorneys since 1 April 2025 during
which the applicant's entitlement to the cycads was asserted and
undertakings not to sell and remove the cycads were sought.
2. On Thursday 10 April 2025 the Executors were requested to
undertake not to remove the trees and were told that the removal of
the leaves indicates the trees have been prepared for removal.
3. The undertaking sought was not forthcoming. This prompted the
applicant to finalize its papers overnight and file on Friday 11 April
2025.
B. URGENCY
[9] The event t hat triggered this application was when late on the afternoon of
Wednesday 9 April 2025 it was discovered that the cycads have been prepared
for removal by removing all of their leaves and tagging the stumps.2
Undertakings were again requested that the cycads would not be removed but
the undertakings were not given. Some of the cycads have not been permitted
by the fourth respondent (the Department ) for removal at all.
2 Founding affidavit paras 14 and 15.
[10] The applicant submitted that having been unsuccessful in obtaining an
undertaking from the respondents not to remove the cycads from the estate
property , papers were settled late on Thursday evening and early on Friday.3
[11] The urgency of th e matter according to the applicant, is premised on the
observation that the cycads have been prepared for removal as their leaves
have been removed and their stumps tagged . The only reason for the remov al
of the leaves is if removal of the cycads is imminent. The requested
undertakings not to remove the cycads were not provided on two occasions .4
The refusal to provide the undertakings suggests that there is a serious
intention to remove the cycads. Further in a letter from the first respondent he
said that this application would be academic, indicating that there is an
intention to remove the cycads so that interdictory relief can no longer be
granted.
[12] The first respondent denies that the cycads are being prepared for removal and
transportation. He alleges that he is aware of all the legalities associated with
the sale , purchase and transportation of cycads.5 He denies that the matter is
urgent.
[13] The first respondent ’s raises points of denial in limine as follows:
1. He contends that the applicant lacks locus standi to bring this
application. According to the first respondent, the applicant’s reliance
on the agreement of sale that he wishes to enforce is misplaced as
there is no agreement.
2. The fifth respondent is tasked with the regulation and enforcement of
environmen tal affairs and legislation. On the facts, it is common cause
3 Given the urgency it was not possible to comply with the practice of finalizing the papers by noon on
Thursday.
4 2 April 2025 and 10 April 2025 as per founding affidavit and its Annexures X and DD paras 8 and 9
respectively.
5 Answering affidavit paras 22 to 24.
that the applicant was granted permits by the fifth respondent for the
removal and transpo rtation.
3. The applicant has failed to provide any objective facts upon which it
can be accepted that the cycads are being prepared for transportation
and removal. However , the respondent s have not denied that the
leaves of a number of cycad s have been cut off, neither have the y
provided a version disputing the applicant ’s allegations , providing
alternative circumstances that would call for the leaves of the cycad s
to be cut off and the stumps to be tagged
[14] The Department wrote to the Executors calling for various permits for the sale
to the third respondent to be provided by 8 :30 on Friday 11 April 2025. Those
documents have not been disclosed by the Executors so far . If those
documents did exist they would surely have been presented to this court to
show the lawfulness of the sale to the third respondent.
[15] The first and second respondents (the Executors) opposed the application on
grounds that the applicant has no cause of action as his application is not
founded on any right since there is no contract in existence between the
applicant and the Executors for the sale of the cycads, as no payment was
received.
[16] The applicant submits that this does not assist the Executors because the
applicant’s offer , which was accepted, expressly records that payment will be
released on physical delivery of the trees.6
[17] The Executors further allege that it was an implied term of the agreement that it
had to be given effect to “within a reasonable time” and that the agreement had
lapsed due to the passage of time. The applicant’s contention is that the
agreement is good and valid . If the Executors had wanted to rely on the
6 Founding affidavit , annexure A.
reasonable time term (if it existed), then they should have first placed the
applicant in mora and the reafter, cancelled the agreement. The Executors have
not said they placed the applicant in mora or that they cancelled the
agreement. This is fatal to the Executors ’ reliance on the reasonable time
provision even if it is part of the agreement.
[18] The applicant also asks for an order that the Executors disclose to his
attorneys the contact details of the third respondent so that this application can
be served on him. This relief is sought because not withstanding having been
requested to provide these details for service of this application the Executors
have refused to do so. In the answering affidavit the Executors say that the
applicant is not entitled to an order that the contact details of the third
respondent be provided, because that would contravene the POPIA Act to do
so, as such the applicant must find the third respondent by himself.
[19] The above reference to POPIA Act has no foundation in law. Section 27(1)(b)
of the POPIA Act says that the limitations imposed on the processing of
information does not apply if the "processing is necessary for the
establishment, exercise or defence of a right or obligation in law." That is
plainly the case in respect of the contact details of the third respondent.
[20] The legal requirements for the granting of an interim interdict are trite by now:7
i. the applicant need only show that “prima facie , though open to some doubt”
he has the right which he seeks to enforce ; and
ii. the court will grant the temporary interdict where the prejudice to the
respondent if granted is less than the prejudice to the applicant if not
granted, subject to any conditions which the court considers necessary to
protect the respondent pending judgment at the subsequent trial.8
7 Webster v Mitchell 1948 (1) SA 1186 (W).
8 Olympic Passenger Service (Pty) Ltd v Ramlagan 1957 (2) SA 382 (D).
iii. The applicant must show a well -grounded (or reasonable) apprehension of
irreparable harm if the interim relief is not granted, and the ultimate relief is
eventually granted.
iv. Lastly, the applicant must show that there is no other sufficient remedy
available to him.
C. CONCLUSION
[21] From the above, it become s apparent that the order sought by the applicant will
endure for a short duration and the Executors ’ interests will not be unduly
hampered.
[22] The following order is made:9
9 As per Part A1 of the Notice of Motion.
1. The Applicant's non -compliance with the Uniform Rules of Court, with
regard to service and time limits, is condoned and that this application
is heard as one of urgency in terms of Rule 6(12);
2. The First to Fourth Respondents are interdicted from removing or
permitting to be removed the cycad trees located at 1 […] and 1[...]
G[...] Street North, Colbyn, Pretoria .
3. The First and Second Respondents are directed to provide to the
Applicant's attorneys the contact details of the Third Respondent
within 24 hours of this order being granted.
4. The Applicant is directed to cause this Application to be served on the
Third Respondent within 48 hours of being advised of the contact
details of the Third Respondent.
5. The interdict in paragraph 2 above is to operate as an interim interdict
pending the determination of the relief sought in Part A2 of this
application.
6. The costs of Part A1 of this application are to stand over for
determination in Part A2 of this application.
J.S. NYATHI
Judge of the High Court
Gauteng Division, Pretoria
Date of hearing: 14/04/2025
Date of Judgment: 05 May 2025
On behalf of the Applicant : Adv. Ian Green SC
Instructed by: Herbert Smith Freehill s South Africa Attorneys Inc.
E-mail: ross.lomax@hsf.com , Phathu.Rambau@hsf.com
On behalf of the Defendants: Adv. Vorster
Attorneys: Aaron Stanger & Associates
c/o: Jacobson & Levy Inc ; Pretoria
E-mails: michelle@aaronstanger.co.za , aaronstanger@iafrica.com , garcia@icon.co.za
and letitia@jllaw.co.za
Delivery : This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties'
legal representatives by email and uploaded on the CaseLines electronic platform. The
date for hand -down is deemed to be 05 May 2025.