Awueel Patel NO v Deedat and Another (Application for Leave to Appeal) (2024/116548) [2025] ZAGPJHC 823 (19 August 2025)

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: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg >> 2025 >> [2025] ZAGPJHC 823 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Awueel Patel NO v Deedat and Another (Application for Leave to Appeal) (2024/116548) [2025] ZAGPJHC 823 (19 August 2025) Awueel Patel NO v Deedat and Another (Application for Leave to Appeal) (2024/116548) [2025] ZAGPJHC 823 (19 August 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2025_823.html sino date 19 August 2025 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 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.” 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. [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. [8] The application is dismissed with costs on Scale B. BADENHORST AJ ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT JOHANNESBURG For the Applicant                    Z Khan, instructed by Mangera Attorneys For the First Respondent       Adv L Grobler, instructed by Joselowitz & Andrews Attorneys sino noindex make_database footer start