Changing Tides 17 (Proprietary) Limited N.O. v Steenkamp (2013/28719) [2026] ZAGPJHC 49 (27 January 2026)

Key Facts

Transaction Type

Issues

• The court must determine whether to grant an interdict restraining the respondent from instituting any further legal proceedings in any court, including the High Court or Magistrate's Court, in relation to the property, and from interfering with the Sheriff's functions in executing the judgment.
• The court must assess whether the respondent's persistent filing of meritless applications, repeated postponement requests, and failure to prosecute appeals over a decade of litigation demonstrates a pattern of vexatious conduct that abuses the judicial process and necessitates protective interdictory relief.
• The court must determine whether the respondent has persistently instituted legal proceedings without reasonable grounds, meeting the requirements of section 2(1)(b) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 3 of 1956, and whether an order should be made to restrain him from instituting further legal proceedings without leave of the court.

Holdings

Remedies

• The respondent is interdicted and restrained from instituting any further proceedings in any Court, including the High Court or Germiston Magistrate's Court, in relation to the specified property without prior leave of the court, with at least 10 days notice required.
• The respondent is declared a vexatious litigant under section 2(1)(b) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 3 of 1956, prohibiting them from instituting legal proceedings without prior leave of the court.
• It is declared that the pending notice of appeal in relation to Germiston Magistrate's Court case number 3098/2023, and the application for leave to appeal under case number 2023/02209, or any subsequent appeal process, does not curtail or affect the applicant and sheriff's entitlement to conduct a sale in execution or the validity of the sale.
• The respondent is interdicted and restrained from interfering with, threatening, or harassing the Sheriff Germiston South or any member of his staff, any bidder at the sale in execution, or any successful purchaser of the property subsequent to the sale.
• The respondent is interdicted and restrained from interfering with, threatening, or impeding the sale in execution of the property, including attending the sale, handing out documents, affixing documents, or publicising any documents aimed at dissuading prospective bidders.
• The respondent is interdicted and restrained from appointing, requesting, or securing the assistance of any person to institute any proceedings or take any step prohibited or restrained in the order.
• The respondent is interdicted and restrained from interfering with, threatening, or impeding the Sheriff of the High Court Germiston South or any other duly appointed sheriff, in carrying out their functions in taking any steps in execution of the judgment.
• The respondent shall pay the costs of this application on the scale as between attorney and client, reflecting the punitive nature of the respondent's mala fides and vexatious conduct.
• The Registrar of the Court shall cause a copy of this order to be published as soon as possible in the Government Gazette as contemplated in section 2(3) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 3 of 1956.

Contract Value

Legal Principles

• The applicant's standing to seek relief under the Vexatious Proceedings Act was determined by previous orders granted in their favour. The court found res judicata applied to the applicant's locus standi, having been decided by prior orders.
• The court awarded punitive costs on the attorney-and-client scale due to the respondent's mala fides, vexatious conduct, and gross abuse of court processes. This departure from the ordinary scale was deemed appropriate and essential given the circumstances.
• The Vexatious Proceedings Act 3 of 1956, Section 2(1)(b) allows courts to declare a person a vexatious litigant when they have persistently instituted legal proceedings without reasonable grounds. The court must balance protecting victims of vexatious litigants from harassment with upholding the constitutional right to access courts.
• The judicial process is designed for bona fide disputes, not as a tool for harassment or oppression. The court must examine whether proceedings are intended to resolve genuine grievances or are meant to harass the other party.

Precedent Name

• Cohen v Cohen and Another
• Wightman t/a J W Construction v Headfour (Pty) Ltd and Another
• Fisheries Development Corporation of SA Ltd v Jorgensen and another
• Beinash and another v Ernst & Young and others
• Eskom v Soweto City Council

Cited Statute

• National Credit Act No. 34 of 2005
• Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013
• Vexatious Proceedings Act 3 of 1956

Judge Name

Passage Text

• [71] I find that the service of this non-existent application, was a calculated ruse by the respondent, designed to mislead the applicant, its legal representatives, and the Sheriff into the mistaken belief, that the matter remained sub judice, thereby inducing an unlawful stay of execution. This conduct by the respondent, illustrates the highpoint of his vexatiousness as he has fraudulently exploited the rules of court, not as a shield for a legitimate right, but as a sword to wound the administration of justice and systematically oppress the applicant's right to the finality of the judgment.
• [90] I am satisfied that the body of evidence compellingly demonstrates the respondent to be a vexatious litigant as contemplated in Section 2(1)(b) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 3 of 1956. His undisputed conduct constitutes a persistent and gross abuse of the court processes. Consequently, to protect the integrity of the administration of justice and prevent further harassment of the applicant, the respondent is prohibited from instituting any legal proceedings in any court without prior leave of such court.
• [64] Furthermore, a clear pattern of dilatory conduct is evident from the inception of the action, as the respondent initially filed a notice of intention to defend, but failed to deliver a plea. Later, he was granted a postponement to file an affidavit resisting summary judgment, which he failed to file. This early refrain to engage with the merits of the applicant's action, established a decade-long pattern of meritless litigation and the employment of court processes solely for the purpose of delay.

Damages / Relief Type

• Interdict restraining respondent from instituting proceedings and interfering with execution of judgment
• Declaration that respondent is a vexatious litigant under section 2(1)(b) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 3 of 1956
• Costs awarded on attorney-and-client scale