Moore v Van Goidsenhoven and Another (30515/2021) [2023] ZAGPPHC 12 (17 January 2023)

begin wrapper begin container begin header begin slogan-floater end slogan-floater - About SAFLII About SAFLII - Databases Databases - Search Search - Terms of Use Terms of Use - RSS Feeds RSS Feeds end header begin main begin center # South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria >> 2023 >> [2023] ZAGPPHC 12 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Moore v Van Goidsenhoven and Another (30515/2021) [2023] ZAGPPHC 12 (17 January 2023) Moore v Van Goidsenhoven and Another (30515/2021) [2023] ZAGPPHC 12 (17 January 2023) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2023_12.html sino date 17 January 2023 # INTHEHIGHCOURTOFSOUTHAFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE NO : 30515/2021 DATE : 17-01-2023 REPORTABLE: NO. OF lNTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO. REVISED. In the matter between TREVOR ALLAN MOORE Plaintiff and ARLENE VAN GOIDENSENHOVEN First Defendant THE CURRENT OCCUPIERS OF 26 BELLINGHAM CRESCENT Second Defendant # JUDGMENT JUDGMENT # (LEAVETOAPPEAL) (LEAVE TO APPEAL) # DAVISJ: DAVIS J : In the judgment delivered in respect of the application which served before this Court earlier this year I refe rred to the parties by their first names . This was to indicate the close personal relationship which had existed between them to such an extent that one partner in a loving relationship would transfer a property into the other partner ' s name albeit with certain disputed conditions . The argument before me today in the application for leave to appeal referred to the parties in a more formal manner and I shall therefore f ollow the more formal appellation . Nine years ago the app l icant purchased certain immovable property and had it registered in the name of the first respondent . This is confirmed by the . applicant ' s particulars of claim in the main action . The relevance of the transfer and why it became the subject of the main action , was that the plaintiff there i n seeks to have the transfer reversed based on the parties ' relationship having terminated some four years later in 2017 . In the particulars of claim the applicant herein , then as plaintiff alleges that he had been entitled to the retransfer of the property upon termination of the relationship alternatively upon a demand which he had then made , further alternatively upon a demand made in the particulars of claim which was issued a year later in 2018 . Some three years later, in an application which, on the face of it , had been launched on 21 June 2021 , but with an inserted date of application yet a year later , being 7 March 2022 , the applicant sought two sets of relief. The first related to discovery of documents and the second to payment of rental proceeds of the property into his attorney ' s trust account . It is alleged that this last was a safeguarding measure although the fruits of the property had not been claimed in the action . No particulars could be furnished to the court as to the progress of the main action despite the fact that litis contestatio had taken place as long ago as May 2019 . In the judgment I have set out the reasons for the refusal of an interim interdict in this regard . In the application for leave to appeal not much was made about the relief relating to discovery of documents or furnishing of rental particulars . Much was however made regarding the money aspect. And Mr van Rensburg SC who appeared for the applicant argued strenuously that the first respondent was a lady of straw and should an interim interdict not have been granted the applicant will suffer irreparable harm . All the allegations regarding these aspects were however in generalised terms without particularity of the actual amounts lost and the like . Despite having threatened more than once that the particulars of claim could have been amended to include such a monetary claim and that such a claim needed to be protected , nothing of that kind had happened . Having regard to the facts of the matter and all these arguments , the applicant has not satisfied this Court in indicating that on appeal another Court would come to a different conclusion and would have granted the interim interdict in the fash ion claimed. Having reached that conclusion I find no cogent reason why the normal principle regarding cost should not apply namely that it should follow the event . The order is accordingly as follows: The application for leave to appeal is refused with costs. # DAVIS J DAVIS J JUDGE OF: THE HIGH COURT GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA DATE OF HANDING DOWN OF JUDGMENT: 27 October 2022 sino noindex make_database footer start