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
(WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN)
CASE NO: 12866/2014
In the matter between: -
C[...] R[...] W[...] Applicant
and
L[...] M[...] W[...] First Respondent
SHERIFF OF THE HIGH COURT MALMESBURY Second Respondent
Date of hearing: 26 June 2025
JUDGMENT: 2 JULY 2025
(Electronically delivered to parties)
LEGRANGE , J
Introduction:
[I] This matter came before me in the fast lane. The Applicant seeks the stay of a
sale in executio n of an immoveable property, in the form of a rule nisi , pending the
outcome of his recission application. The recission application relates to a final
divorce order that was granted by Judge Salie -Hlophe (as she then was, now Salie)
on 26 August 2020. The date for the sale in execution is Friday 4 July 2025 and the
recission application has been set down for hearing on 18 September 2025.
[2] The First Respondent, (the Respondent) opposed the application and
launched a counter -application, also couched in the form of a rule nisi in which she
seeks interdictory relief preventing the Applicant from instituting any further litigation
against her and directing that he furnishes security for her costs in respect of two
recent applications that was launched o ut of this Court pending the return date
where she seeks a final order declaring the Applicant a vexatious litigant. Both
applications were heard simultaneously.
Background:
[3] It is common cause that on 26 August 2020, Judge Salie granted judgment
and final order regarding the patrimonial consequences, maintenance and costs in
respect of the divorce between the parties. The Respondent was substantially
successful. The Applicant was ordered to pay an amount of R 16.8 million in respect
of the Respondent 's accrual claim. She was also granted ancillary relief, and the
Applicant was ordered to pay various costs orders including the costs of the divorce.
[4] The subject of the current stay proceedings is the property owned by the
C[...] 's Trust that is situat ed in an upmarket Golf Estate near Atlantic Beach, Cape
Town. Judge Salie found that C[...] 's Trust was the alter ego of the Applicant and
declared that the assets and liabilities of the Trust be transferred to him in his
personal capacity within 60 days o f granting the order. To date that has not
happened. On 17 May 2024, Acting Judge Holderness (as she then was) now Judge
Holderness, declared the property executable pursuant to a Rule 46A application to
satisfy the outstanding amounts of over R 11 million to the Respondent. A reserve
price of R 9 million was set by the court. Aggrieved by the decision of the Court, the
Applicant sought leave to appeal from the Court which was refused with costs. He
then approached the Supreme Court of Appeal for special leave to appeal the
judgment. That was also refused with costs.
[5] It needs to be said that the Applicant was also dissatisfied with the judgment
and order of Judge Salie and launched an application for leave to appeal in that
Court which was refused. He petitioned the Supreme Court of Appeal, which
included a second application for leave to appeal to the President of the Supreme
Court of Appeal and ultimately the Constitutional Court. All were dismissed with
costs. The issues that were determined by Ju dge Salie are therefore res judicata and
cannot be revisited.
[6] According to the Respondent, the current application is but another attempt by
the Applicant to undermine and avoid complying with court orders. In her answering
affidavit the Respondent alleges that since the order of26 August 2020, the Applicant
has adopted a Stalin -grad strategy to challenge and disregard the orders of court. A
list of litigations the Applicant had embarked upon during and post the divorce
proceedings was also attached to the Respondent's papers. The bulk of the litigation
by the App licant revolves around the outcome of the divorce proceedings.
[7] It is evident that the Applicant does not accept the outcome of the divorce
proceedings and is willing to go to great lengths to overturn it. In 2021 when the apex
court dismissed his app lications for leave to appeal, the Applicant launched an
urgent application on New Year's Eve on 31 December 2021 to stay the provisions of
the divorce order for six months. That application was dismissed with costs. The
Applicant thereafter launched 3 different applications out of the Maintenance Court in
which he sought either stay or vary the divorce order and or to reduce the
maintenance he needs to pay to the Respondent. All three applications were
dismissed with costs.
[8] The Applicant then turn ed his attention to the Respondent's attorneys and
counsel. He lodged complaints with the Cape Bar Council and the Legal Practice
Council (LPC). All these complaints were dismissed. The applicant dissatisfied with
that outcome has now appealed against the LPC's rulings. These appeals are still
pending. He also turned against his own erstwhile counsel and attorney and lodged
a complaint to the LPC. He reported both his senior counsel who appeared on his
behalf to the Cape Bar Council, including his erstwhile financial expert to the South
African Institute of Charted Accountants.
[9] Judge Salie did not escape the Applicant's wrath. He also lodged a complaint
against her at the Judicial Services Commission which was dismissed.
[10] On 5 March 2025, the App licant lodged a formal complaint with the Office of
the Legal Services Ombud (OLSO) alleging that all the legal practitioners that have
been involved in this matter, including Judge Salie committed perjury, fraud, and
malfeasance in defrauding high -net-worth litigants in family matters.
[11] In May 2025, the Applicant directed letters of demand to the Respondent's
attorneys in terms of which he threatened to institute proceedings to recover R 210
million from them for alleged financial loss, reputational harm and damage to his
mental, emotional and professional life. On 10 June 2025, the Applicant submitted
supplementary complaints against the Respondent's attorney's and counsel to the
LPC.
Stay Application
[12] In the notice of motion, the Applicant s eeks interim interdictory relief that the
operation and execution of the court order granted on 13 June 2024, declaring the
said property executable be suspended pending the outcome of the recission
application which had been set down for hearing on 18 Sep tember 2025.
[13] The Applicant, who appeared in person, submitted that allowing the auction
will cause him irreversible harm as the recission application is based on serious
procedural and Constitutional violations. According to the Applicant the underlying
issues hav e not been heard on the merits in any appeal and the property in question
remains the primary residence of the C[...] 's Trust and himself. It was further
contented that the characterization by the Respondent that the Trust is his alter ego
was not only mis leading but will be challenged in the recission application. In respect
of the counter -application the Applicant submitted that he was not given a
reasonable time to prepare an answering affidavit, and the matter should be heard
on a later date as it is a separate issue. He further submitted that the counter -
application forms part of a broader pattern of bad faith litigation which is already the
subject of complaints before the LPC and OLSO.
[14] Advocate Buikman, SC who appeared on behalf of the Resp ondent submitted
that the Applicant's rescission application is without merit and misplaced. According
to her the Applicant's grounds for recission are untenable as the evidence attached
to his founding and replying affidavits were all part of the divorce proceedings. It was
further contended that given the fact that the divorce proceedings are res judicata,
the Applicant's recission application is an abuse of the court's process as it has no
prospects of success. In the counter -application it was argued th at the Applicant
(Respondent) have exploited and abused the processes of the Court for improper
purposes and has become a vexatious litigant by refusing to comply with the orders
of court and costs orders.
Discussion:
[15] In terms of Rule 45A, a court may, on application, suspend the operation and
execution of any order for such period as it may deem fit: Provided that in the case of
appeal, such suspension is in compliance with section 18 of the Act. In the matter of
Stoffberg NO and Another v Capital H arvest (Pty) Ltd1 the court at para 26 held the
following:
"[26] The broad and unrestricting wording of rule 45A suggests that it was
intended to be a restatement of the courts' common law discretionary power.
The particular power is an instance of the co urts' authority to regulate its own
process. Being a judicial power, it falls to be exercised judicially. Its exercise
will therefore be fact specific, and the guiding principle will be that execution
will be suspended where real and substantial justice requires that. 'Real and
substantial justice' is a concept that defies precise definition, rather like 'good
cause' or 'substantial reason'. It is for the court to decide on the facts of each
1 2021 JDR 1644 (WCC)
given case whether considerations of rea l and substantial justice are
sufficiently engaged to warrant suspending the execution of a judgment; and,
if they are, on what terms any suspension it might be persuaded to allow
should be granted."
[16] The question now is whether on the facts of this case considerations of real
and substantial justice are sufficiently engaged to warrant the relief sought by the
Applicant.
[17] There is a long and acrimonious history of litigation between the parties. The
divorce proceedings started in July 2014 and t he final order regarding the patrimonial
consequences of the divorce was only granted on 26 August 2020. Although the
Respondent was substantially successful, the applicant holds the firm view that the
order of Judge Salie included directives that are fina ncially devasting and
unaffordable to him. The Applicant further believes that the process by which the
order was reach was fundamentally flawed, unjust and subjects him to ongoing
contempt proceedings based on an order which is impossible to comply with.
[18] In the complaint to OSLO, the Applicant avers that there was systemic fraud,
perjury, procedural abuse and judicial overreach. He blamed two of his own erstwhile
advocates, that are senior counsel, for colluding with the Respondent's legal team by
deliberately abandoning him midway and at key stages during the trial. He also
believes there was judicial conflict and bias. According to him all the senior co unsels
in the matter acted at some point as judges in the Division and as such these long -
standing association fatally compromised the impartiality as required by s 165 of the
Constitution, including the fact that Judge Salie was previously married to the then
Judge President.
[19] On the papers filed of record, the main grounds for the rescission application
are the following: the divorce order is impossible to comply with; it enables execution
proceedings against trust assets; it jeopardizes the applica nt's livelihood and
independence; it facilitates fraudulent enrichment by legal practitioners; it renders the
applicant vulnerable to legal and financial ruin, and it will render him homeless and
deprive the parties' children of their beneficial interest i n trust assets.
[20] The above -mentioned grounds are untenable. The divorce court specifically
declared the C[...] s Trust to be an alter ego of the Applicant, with all assets therein
beneficially held by him. This finding was never upset on appeal. It is on that basis
that the proceedings were based to have the immovable property declared
executable. Holderness J repeatedly emphasised in her judgment that the
correctness and enforcement of the divorce order is res judicata .
[21] The divorce order and jud gment are based on evidence led by both parties
relating to their respective financial standings, and the apex court has since found no
cause upon which to consider the outcome of the divorce appealable. The evidence
the Applicant had annexed to his fou nding and replying affidavits was all part of the
divorce proceedings. There is accordingly no legitimate basis on which the Applicant
can suggest that the outcome of the divorce was based on anything but evidence of
his financial means.
[22] It is paten tly clear the Applicant wants a second chance to relitigate his
divorce proceedings before a different judge, hoping to secure a different outcome
and will stop at nothing to achieve that goal. A case in point is the relentless attempts
to report his erstw hile legal team, his financial expert, the first respondent's legal
team and members of the judiciary, to the relevant institutions. All of which had so far
been unsuccessful. There is thus no legitimate basis on which the applicant can
avert that any lega l practitioner has been fraudulently enriched or that there was
overreach by any judicial officer.
[23] The pending recission application, objectively viewed, is nothing more than a
clothed appeal to prevent any attempts by the Respondent to execute on t he
immovable property to recover amounts legitimately owed to her in terms of the
divorce order. Furthermore, the suggestion that the lack of impartiality fatally
compromised the divorce proceedings because of collusion between his, the
Respondents legal t eam and the Judge has no basis in fact or the law. That
contention is simply farcical.
[24] Simply put, the Applicant has now resorted to lawfare tactics to force a
rehearing of the divorce proceedings hoping for a different outcome. In the process
he is openly defying the orders of this Court.
[25] A fundamental doctrine in our law is, there must be an end to litigation2. The
policy which underlies this principle of res judicata is that nobody should be
permitted to harass another with second litiga tion on the same subject as such
litigation can be viewed as an abuse of process3.
[26] The current application for recission, objectively viewed, is an abuse of
process. The Applicant is harassing the Respondent with second litigation on the
same subject. This must end.
[27] On the facts of this case real and substantial justice deman ds that the
execution of the court order granted on 13 June 2024, declaring the said property
executable, must proceed and not be suspended pending the outcome of the
recission application.
[28] It follows that the application for interim relief cannot s ucceed.
[29] In the result the following order is made:
1. The application for interim relief is dismissed with costs, including costs of
Senior Counsel on Scale C.
[30] Turning to the counter -application. The Applicant (Respondent above) has
overwhelmingly demonstrated that the Respondent (Appli cant above) has gone to
extraordinary lengths to avoid his obligations by embarking on a barrage of
unrelenting litigation without any success. In the process, various cost orders,
including a punitive cost order were granted against him. To date he has no t abided
by those orders. This lawfare has seriously prejudiced the Applicant. Moreover, the
2 Custom Credit Corporation (Pty)Ltd v Shembe 1972 (3) SA462 (A) at 472 B.
3 Janse V an Rensburg and Others NNO v Steenkamp; Janse van Rensburg an Others NNO v
Myburgh 2010 (1) SA 649 (SCA) at 660H -661D.
Respondent's flagrant disregard for paying the costs orders whilst continuing with
relentless litigation is vexatious in the extreme4. This must stop.
[31] It follows that that the Applicant has made out a case for the relief sought in
the Notice of Motion.
[32] In the result draft order marked 'X' is made an order of Court.
Le Grange, J
4 See Beinash and Another v Ernst & Young and Others 1999 (2) SA 116 (CC) at para 21.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN)
CASE NO: 12866/2014
Before His Lordship Mr Justic e, Le Grange
Cape Town, Wednesday 2 /7/25
In the matter between:
L[...] M[...] W[...] Applicant
and
C[...] R[...] W[...] Respondent
ORDER
HAVING HEARD COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT AND THE RESPONDENT IN
PERSON an order is granted in the following terms:
1. The application is postponed to the urgent roll on 5 August 2025;
2. A rule nisi is issued calling upon the respondent to show cause on 5 August
2025 why an order in the following terms should not be made final:
2.1 Declaring the respondent to be a vexatious litigant in terms of section
2(1)(b) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 3 of 1956 ("the Act");
2.2 Precluding the respondent from instituting any legal proceedings
against the applicant in any Local or Pro vincial Division of the High Court of
South Africa or any inferior Court, without first obtaining the leave of this Court,
which leave shall not be granted until such time as:
2.2.1 the respondent has complied fully with the provisions of the
Final Order of Divorce granted under case number 12866/2014 on 26
August 2020; and
2.2.2 the respondent has paid the costs orders, as finally taxed and
determined by the relevant Taxing Masters, under case numbers:
12866/2014; A228/2023; CCT198/21; SCA Case No. 932/ 2020; SCA
Case No. 276/2021; SCA Case No. 1339/2024;
2.3 Ordering the respondent to provide security in the amount of R100 000
(one hundred thousand Rand) each, in respect of the applications instituted
by him in this Court on 4 June 2025, under case numbe r 2025 -083923 and on
12 June 2025, under case number 12866/2014. in accordance with the
notices filed by the applicant in terms of Rule 47, within 10 days of this order
being granted;
2.4 In the event of the aforesaid security not being furnished time ously, the
applicant is given leave to apply on the same papers, amplified as may be
necessary, for the dismissal of the aforesaid proceedings;
2.5 Ordering the respondent to pay the costs of this application on the
scale as between attorney and own clie nt, such costs to include the costs of
senior counsel:
2.6 Granting the applicant such further and/or alternative relief as this
Honourable Court may deem fit.
3. Pending the return day of the rule nisi , the relief in paragraphs 2.2 to 2.3
above shall act as an interim interdict with immediate effect.
4. The respondent is ordered to file his answering affidavit, if any, on or before 8
July 2025;
5. The applicant shall file her replying affidavit on or before 22 July 2025;
6. The parties shall file their respective heads of argument on or before 29 July
2025.
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
THE COURT REGISTRAR
Catto Neethling Wiid attorneys
HC Box no: 663