Page 1 of 4
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this
document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Case Number: 2024- 116548
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED: NO
DATE 19/8/2025
In the matter between:
AQUEEL PATEL NO in his capacity as curator to MAHOMED DEDAT ,
ZAIBOONISHA DEDAT ,SHAHEDA DEDAT ,ZOHRA MAHOMED DEDAT
,ISMAEL BHOJA NO Applicant
and
MOHAMED NAEEM DEEDAT First Respondent
REGISTRAR OF DEEDS Second Respondent
JUDGMENT IN THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
BADENHORST AJ:
[1] The applicant applies for leave to appeal against my judgment dated 18
December 2024 in terms of which I dismissed its application for the status quo to be
Page 2 of 4
preserved in relation to a one eighteenth fraction [“the fraction”] of an undivided
share of the ownership in a property situated at Erf 2[ …] Fordsburg (“the property”)
with the street address 4[…] L[…] Road, F[…], Johannesburg, pendente lite.
[2] The essential question at this stage of the proceedings is whether there is a
reasonable prospect that another court would arrive at a different conclusion to what
is stated in paragraph [20] of the judgment, namely:
“[20] The application fails to establish these requirements (for an interim
interdict): the applicant has no right to interdict the first respondent from
encumbering, alienating, bonding, selling, leasing or in any way transacting or
dealing with his (fractional) share in the property. The allegation of fraud is
contested and I am unable to find that the alleged right has been prima facie
established upon the application of the test in Webster v Mitchell 1948 (1) SA
1186 (W) at 1189- 1190 and Gool v Minister of Justice and Another [1955] 3
All SA 115 (C).There can in any event be no harm to the applicant, because –
as a matter of law – none of the perceived actions by first respondent can
affect the property as a whole. It also follows that there is no balance of
convenience in applicant’s favour and the question of an alternative remedy
does not arise. Tellingly, the applicant does not allege that the first respondent
has threatened to or has the power to do anything that will affect the property
as a whole.”
[3] The central plank of applicant’s case for a prima facie right is that the fraction
(dealing in which it seeks to interdict), was obtained by fraud.
[4] Counsel for first respondent submits that the only allegation of fraud in the
founding affidavit is the following statement in paragraph 14:
“The Applicants claim that the First Respondent has fraudulently taken
transfer of certain undivided shares in the property.”
transfer of certain undivided shares in the property.”
This bald allegation, which is manifestly inadequate to establish the requisite prima
facie case of fraud, is denied in paragraph 55 of the answering affidavit.
Page 3 of 4
[5] Counsel for the applicant submits, however, that the court should look beyond
paragraph 14 of the founding affidavit and referred to paragraph 18 of the founding
affidavit where the deponent makes the following request:
“18. I ask the Court not to read these voluminous annexes at this stage, as
Applicants Heads of Argument will direct the Court to certain relevant
passages in these papers.” [my emphasis]
Counsel for the applicant then proceeded (as he did at the main hearing) to refer to
examples from the “voluminous annexes” to bolster the allegation of fraud.
[6] The rule is stated as follows in Swissborough Diamond Mines (Pty) Ltd and
Others v Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others 1999 (2) SA 279
(T) at 324F – G:
“Regard being had to the function of affidavits, it is not open to an applicant or
a respondent to merely annexe to its affidavit documentation and to request
the Court to have regard to it. What is required is the identification of the
portions thereof on which reliance is placed and an indication of the case
which is sought to be made out on the strength thereof. If this were not so the
essence of our established practice would be destroyed. A party would not
know what case must be met. See Lipschitz and Schwarz NNO v Markowitz
1976 (3) SA 772 (W) at 775H and Port Nolloth Municipality v Xahalisa and
Others; Luwalala and Others v Port Nolloth Municipality 1991 (3) SA 98 (C) at
111B—C ”
[7] In my view, the applicant has not satisfied the test for leave to appeal ,
essentially, because another court is unlikely to find that applicant has , in its
founding affidavit , established a prima facie case of fraud in regard to first
respondent’s acquisition of ownership of the fraction. The bald allegation made in the
founding affidavit cannot be bolstered by – in argument – referencing “voluminous
annexes” in circumstances where the Swissborough requirements have not been
satisfied.
annexes” in circumstances where the Swissborough requirements have not been
satisfied.
[8] The application is dismissed with costs on Scale B.
BADENHORST AJ
Page 4 of 4
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
JOHANNESBURG
For the Applicant Adv Z Khan, instructed
by Mangera Attorneys
For the First Respondent Adv L Grobler, instructed by Joselowit z &
Andrews Attorneys