Hajee v Darsot (42535/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 840 (27 July 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: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg >> 2023 >> [2023] ZAGPJHC 840 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Hajee v Darsot (42535/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 840 (27 July 2023) Hajee v Darsot (42535/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 840 (27 July 2023) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2023_840.html sino date 27 July 2023 # IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA # GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG # CASE NO :  42535/2022 DATE :  23-11-2022 NOT REPORTABLE NOT OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES REVISED 27.07.23 In the matter between ZUBAYR ABUBAKER HAJEE Applicant and MOHAMED HANIF DARSOT Respondent J U D G M E N T YACOOB, J : This is an urgent application for an interim interdict interdicting the selling and transfer of a property for which the applicant has entered into an agreement of sale with the respondent. The respondent cancelled the agreement on the basis that the applicant had not paid the amounts that, according to the respondent, the applicant had to pay. The applicant contends that the cancellation was not done in good faith, that the applicant has tendered to make payment in accordance with the agreement and that there is sufficient dispute of  fact to warrant the matter being referred to trial. On that basis, it is submitted that the applicant has established a prima facie right and that the applicant will suffer more prejudice than the respondent will if there is no interdict. The applicant therefore submits he is entitled to an interdict pending the determination of the trial. I am satisfied that even on the interpretation of the agreement contended for by the applicant, the applicant has not complied with his obligations in terms of the agreement, nor does the tender that was made on the 12 th of October in fact tender to comply with those obligations in full. The applicant has therefore not established a prima facie right to the relief sought nor that that is where the balance of convenience lies and the application is therefore dismissed with costs. S. YACOOB JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG APPEARANCES: APPEARANCE FOR THE APPLICANT: Y ALLI APPEARANCE FOR THE RESPONDENT: P STRATHERN SC sino noindex make_database footer start