Cape Town - A man who refused to move from a property in Constantia that was sold after a creditor obtained a default judgment against him, has had his application to appeal against an eviction order nullified.
In his ruling, Western Cape High Court Judge Matthew Francis said the litigation had a long history beginning in April 2019, when one of Mohammed Moosa’s creditors obtained a default judgment against him.
Moosa was unable to settle the judgment debt and the creditor initiated sequestration proceedings during June 2020. Following a failed settlement agreement, Moosa’s estate was placed under final sequestration on March 17, 2021.
In June 2021, the applicant, a company called Ribbon Dancer Investments, offered to purchase the property from the trustees of Moosa’s insolvent estate.
The trustees had sold and transferred the property to the applicant during the course of the administration of the insolvent estate in December 2021.
Moosa refused to vacate the property and the applicant instituted eviction proceedings in the Wynberg Magistrate’s Court in February 2022.
After pleadings had closed, attorney Verton Moodley placed himself on record as Moosa’s attorney.
The eviction order was granted in August 2022 and in September 2022, Moosa gave Moodley instructions to appeal against it. In December 2022, the applicant lodged the main application for the immediate execution of the eviction order.
However, on agreement from both sides, the matter was adjourned to January 25 when Moodley called for another adjournment claiming that Moosa only paid him at the last minute.
The applicant argued that Moodley assisted Moosa in breaching orders of the court, in manufacturing delays, and in instituting frivolous proceedings with no merit and which were aimed solely at preventing Moosa from having to vacate the property.
They also argued that the appeal was not noted or filed timeously, that Moodley failed to provide security for costs on time, and that no applications were filed to condone Moosa’s non-compliance with the rules of court.
Judge Francis agreed and said: “The fact that Moodley may have received funds late or that he was not instructed timeously does not detract from his obligations, as a legal practitioner, towards his colleagues and to this court.
“The manner in which Moodley applied for the adjournment illustrates his lack of respect for his colleagues, displayed a measure of disrespect for this court, and hampered the administration of justice.”