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
KWAZULU-NATAL DIVISION, PIETERMARITZBURG
CASE NUMBER: 2025-109269
In the matter between:
ISMAIL SAEED APPLICANT
Versus
AHMED SAEED RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
P C BEZUIDENHOUT J:
[1] Applicant is seeking an interdict against Respondent inter alia not to disturb
Applicant’s business operations at […] and [...] C[...] Street, Richmond, KwaZulu-Natal.
Further that Respondent or his agents or persons acting under his command be
interdicted and restrained from interfering and or disturbing the tenants occupying the
said building and that any person acting under his command be prevented from
entering onto the property which is occupied by Applicant, his employees, tenants,
agents and contractors. Respondent also not go within 50 metres of the property; to not
threaten, intimidate, harass or harm Applicants employees, tenants, agents,
2
contractors or tenants’ employees. The relief is set out the notice of motion and it is not
necessary to repeat it all herein. The Sheriff to be assisted by the South African Police
Services to serve the order on Respondent and to prevent any of the conduct which is
referred to. Respondent is also to pay the costs of the application as between attorney
and client.
[2] Before dealing with the issues in the said application it may be helpful to briefly
set out the background of this case.
[3] Applicant is the uncle of Respondent. From the documentation it appears that
the property which is referred to as Bombay H ouse and also Budget Building in C[...]
street, Richmond, KwaZulu -Natal was sold by Applicant to Respondent on 18
December 2019 for the sum of R2 000 000.00. At that stage an amount of
R1 300 000.00 had already been paid to Applicant. In the replying affidavit Applicant
contends that he leased the premises to Respondent. Various lease agreements with
tenants are attached to the papers and are all in respect of the said property and were
all signed during December 2025. Action was instituted by Respondent against
Applicant during 2023 for transfer of the property after he had offered to pay the balance
of R196 000.00 in full and final payment of the R2 000 000.00. Applicant now denies he
signed the deed of sale dated 18 December 2019.
[4] It is not in dispute that Respondent was given possession of the property during
April 2019, that he let out the shops and that all the rent was paid to him until December
2024. From January 2025 the rental was no longer paid to him as Applicant alleged in a
letter to the tenants that the lease with Respondent had been cancelled during
December 2024 , that he was the owner of the property , and instructed the tenants to
pay the rental to him.
3
[5] As I already mentioned various lease agreements which have been entered into
between Applicant with various tenants are as well as the summons, particulars of
claim, the plea, the counter claim etc all dealing with this property are attached to the
papers. This does not however assist in the determination of the main application
before court except that it does relate to the counter application which was instituted
by Respondent.
[6] In the counter application it is sought that various individuals who are listed
therein are joined as Respondents in the proceedings. Further pending the outcome of
the matter under case number 1048/2023P that Applicant does not interfere with any of
the business operations situated at C […] Street, Richmond, KwaZulu -Natal and does
not collect rent from the tenants. Second to Seventh Respondent are directed to pay to
First Respondent the rentals, alternatively to First Respondent’s attorney or to
Applicant’s attorney. The rental so obtained shall then be invested in an interest bearing
account. It also sets out the procedure to be followed in the event of any maintenance
or repair that has to be done to the building and how this should be dealt with by the
parties and the attorney to whom the rental is paid. That the costs of the application be
reserved for decision by the court adjudicating the action.
[7] Applicant, in his founding affidavit, contends that the relief which is sought in the
notice of motion is necessary as there is a genuine concern that Respondent will
continue with his unlawful conduct. He contends that he is the owner of the property
and that the action instituted by Respondent is defended. Due to the dispute in respect
of the property, on 27 December 2024 he issued a notice to tenants advising them that
the property belonged to him and all rental had to be paid to him.
[8] He contends that Respondent on 15 March 2025 forcibly ejected one of his
[8] He contends that Respondent on 15 March 2025 forcibly ejected one of his
tenants from a shop. The said tenant one Uddin brought a spoliation application in the
Magistrates Court Richmond. This application was however not proceeded with nor
4
considered and no judgment was given therein. A confirmatory affidavit by the said Mr.
Uddin is attached to the application papers. Applicant lists the persons with whom he
has lease agreements and copies thereof are attached to the papers . A ll these lease
agreements were only entered into during January 2025.
[9] In paragraph 20 of the founding affidavit Applicant sets out that one Shaming
Mamun, one of the tenants, advised him that he had been told by a third party that if the
rental was not paid to Respondent the same would happen to him as happ ened to Mr.
Uddin. On 30 June 2025. Lindiwe Ntombela, another tenant, advised him that an agent
acting on behalf of Respondent had approached her and also said that if the rental was
not paid to Respondent the same would happen to her as to Ud din. Except for these
persons mentioned above there are no confirmatory affidavits by any of the other
tenants that they have been threatened etc.
[10] Based on these averments Applicant brings the application. What is set out in
respect of Mr. Mamun is hearsay, not only in the first degree but far removed as the best
it can state is “that a third party had told him” . There is no mention who this person is.
The averment by Lindiwe Ntombela states that she was approached by an agent acting
on behalf of Respondent. There is no indication who this agent is and on what basis it is
contended that it is an agent of Respondent. The only other allegation is that of Mr.
Uddin which Applicant rel ies on for the relief sought. As set out above that matter was
never proceeded with.
[11] There is nothing in the founding affidavit that Respondent interfered with tenants
except for Uddin, who is no longer on the premises or Masmun and Ntombela’s
allegations I dealt with above. There is no evidence of any interference etc against the
tenants mentioned in paragraph 19.1, 19.2 and 19.5 to 19.7. There is no evidence why
tenants mentioned in paragraph 19.1, 19.2 and 19.5 to 19.7. There is no evidence why
Respondent may not go closer than fifty met res from the property nor any allegation or
5
evidence to support the relief claimed in paragraphs 3.3 to 3.6 and paragraph 4 of the
notice of motion.
[12] It is trite that Applicant must make out a case for the relief claimed in his
founding affidavit. In my view the allegations which are contained in the founding
affidavit are hearsay and there is nothing further upon which the relief sought can be
granted. Applicant has failed to make out a case for the relief claimed in the notice of
motion.
[13] Respondent instituted a counter application as set out in paragraph 2 of the
notice of mot ion in the counter application on page 013 -3 to 013 -5 of the papers. He
seeks inter alia that the rental paid by the tenants be paid into the trust account of
either Applicant’s attorney or Respondent’s attorney. Respondent also in paragraph 1 of
the notice of counter application seeks that the tenants be joined in the proceedings. It
is however, in my view, due to the conclusion reached herein not necessary to grant an
order for the joinder of the Respondents as they do not have any specific interest in the
application. I t is also not in dispute that they are in occupation of the said business
premises and have to pay rental. The order sought only instructs them where to pay the
rental.
[14] It is apparent from the papers that there is a dispute between the parties as to
whether an agreement of sale was signed , w hether Applicant recalls signing it and
whether there was a lease agreement. From 2019 until 2024 the rental was collected by
Respondent. It was only after the letters of Applicant during December 2025 that
Applicant contended he was the owner and the rentals were then to be paid to him.
[15] Due to the disputes mentioned to them the rental that has to be paid is in issue.
This can only be determined during the trial where oral evidence will be led. It is
necessary that this matter proceed to trial as soon as possible. The rental paid is
6
accordingly in issue until the action is finalised. The order which is inter alia sought by
Respondent in the counter application that the rental be paid to an attorney pending the
outcome of the matter under case number 1084/2023P appears to be a sensible
solution to the problem. This matter should have been set down for trial long ago and it
is unnecessary that it is dragging on at this rate.
[16] The tenants must be allowed to continue occupying the said premises and the
rental is to be paid to an attorney to be kept in an interest bearing account pending the
finalisation of the action. Counter Relief as set out in portions of the counter
application is justified. Respondent has failed to make out a case for the relief sought in
paragraph 2 (a), (b) and (c) of the notice of the counter application , relating to threats
etc.
The following order is accordingly made:
1. The main application is dismissed with costs.
2. Pending the outcome of the matter under case number 1048/2023P the tenants
of the respective pr emises at 8 C[...] Street Richmond who at present are as set
out in paragraph 19.1 to 19.7 of Applicant’s founding affidavit are to pay their
monthly rental to Applicant’s attorney J Leslie Smith and Company Incorporated,
Athlone Centre 1 Montgomery Drive Pietermaritzburg.
3. An order is granted in terms of paragraph 2(d), 2 (e) and 2 ( e) (iii) and 2 (f) of the
notice of counter application on pages 013-4 and 013-5 of the papers.
______________________
P C BEZUIDENHOUT J.
7
JUDGMENT RESERVED: 5 JUNE 2026
JUDGMENT HANDED DOWN ONLINE:
COUNSEL FOR APPLICANT: T Q REDDY
Instructed by: J Leslie Smith & Company Inc
Pietermaritzburg
Tel: 033 845 9700
Email: naseebas@jleslie.co.za
Ref: N SADAK/22JL0026
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT: G REDDY
Instructed by: R Ramjathan and Associates
Chatworth
Ref: 17801
c/o: Masstross Naidoo Ori Inc.
Pietermaritzburg
Email: ori@mastross.co.za