- Court holds that the same dispute cannot be litigated more than once between the same parties.
- Mampe fails to prove withdrawal from case 1026/11 and acknowledges it is still pending.
- Application stayed pending the earlier case, with costs awarded, including two counsel.
The High Court in the North West has ruled that the law does not allow the same dispute to be brought before the court more than once, stopping TJ Mampe Trading and Projects CC from pursuing its claim over a Mmabatho property.
Acting Judge JT Maodi found that Mampe’s application duplicated proceedings that are still pending under case number 1026/11.
The matter concerns Erf 1 in Mmabatho, where a Shell fuel station, operated by Hemca Motors Pty Ltd, has been in operation for years. Mampe sought an order compelling the Registrar of Deeds to transfer the property into its name and to remove an interdict that has blocked any transfer since 2011.
Parties and competing positions
TJ Mampe Trading and Projects CC brought the application against the Registrar of Deeds Vryburg, the North West Housing Corporation, several provincial departments, Hemca Motors Pty Ltd, Shell SA Pty Ltd, and other state respondents.
Mampe argued that it acquired the property in 2009 and that there was no longer any justification to prevent transfer. It also claimed that it had withdrawn from earlier proceedings and that the court should allow the matter to proceed.
The Registrar opposed the application, raising lis pendens and arguing that Mampe was attempting to pursue the same relief already sought in pending litigation.
Other respondents pointed to the earlier case, highlighting unresolved issues about the legality of the sale and the authority to dispose of the property.
Hemca Motors maintained that any transfer must ultimately pass to it and that the interdict cannot be lifted without a court order resolving the earlier matter. Shell SA supported the continuation of the interdict and raised concerns about the validity of the original transaction.
Court enforces rule against duplicate litigation
Judge Maodi found that the requirements for lis pendens were satisfied, as the same parties, cause of action, and relief were involved in both matters.
The court stated, “The three requirements for a successful reliance on the plea of lis pendens are that the litigation is between the same parties, that the cause of action is the same and that the same relief is sought in both sets of proceedings.”
The judge emphasised the principle directly, stating, “The same suit, between the same parties, should be brought only once and finally.”
The court warned that allowing the application to proceed would result in “a conflict of judgments or duplication of orders in the same dispute involving the same parties.”
No proof of withdrawal from the earlier case
Mampe’s claim that it had withdrawn from the earlier proceedings was rejected.
Judge Maodi found that no proof of withdrawal had been provided and noted that Mampe itself acknowledged that the earlier case remains pending. The court also found no evidence that the matter had been settled.
The court held that key questions still needed to be determined in the earlier proceedings, including whether the property was sold lawfully and whether the seller had the authority to dispose of it.
Judge Maodi stated, “These issues require proper ventilation, and I cannot make such a determination at this stage.”
Costs and order
The court ordered Mampe to pay the costs of the application, including the costs of two counsel, after finding that it proceeded despite the earlier case still being active.
The application was stayed pending the final determination of case number 1026/11.
Get your news on the go. Clickhere to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
