About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
>>
2022
>>
[2022] ZAGPJHC 240
|
|
Empact Group (Pty) Ltd v Magoro (7541/2022) [2022] ZAGPJHC 240 (22 March 2022)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION HELD
AT JOHANNESBURG
CASE
NO
: 7541/2022
DATE
:
2022/03/22
REPORTABLE:
NO
OF
INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
REVISED
In
the matter between
EMPACT
GROUP (PTY) LTD
and
MUTSHIYANI
THLANGESI MAGORO
J
U D G M E N T
CRUTCHFIELD
,
J
: This matter comes before the urgent court during the last week
term on 22 March 2022. The applicant, on its own version, discovered
the breach upon which it relies for its cause of action on 28 January
2022, approximately seven weeks to two months prior to this
application being set down for hearing.
It took the applicant approximately
eleven days thereafter, until 9 February 2022, to seek the
advice of its attorneys of record
and to instruct its attorneys to
proceed in respect of the breach discovered on 28 January 2022.
Correspondence was remitted to the
respondents thereafter on 10 February 2022. The application incepted
on 28 February 2022 or thereabouts,
approximately one month after the
applicant first discovered the breach upon which it relies.
During the course of the
abovementioned time period, the applicant found itself with
sufficient time to seek the opinion of counsel.
Thereafter, the
affidavits were filed with reasonable alacrity and no finger can
pointed at the respondent in respect of its conduct
in this matter.
As at the morning of Tuesday 22 March
2022 at approximately 09h00
heads of argument
and a practice note from the applicant had not yet been filed and nor
had a chronology of relevant events in the matter been uploaded
on
CaseLines.
Notwithstanding, a practice note and
heads of argument
from the respondents
were uploaded on CaseLines. It is the applicant’s
responsibility in advancing its case on urgency to
set out what harm
will occur to it in the event that it is not granted a hearing in the
week of 22 March 2022.
The applicant has already waited
approximately seven to eight weeks prior to setting this application
down for hearing by a court.
In the circumstances, little harm that
is of an irreparable nature and that has not already taken place
between the date of the
discovery of the breach and the date today,
22 March 2022, will occur to the applicant.
In my view there is no reason why this
application cannot and should not be set down in the opposed motion
court roll in the ordinary
course or why the applicant should not
approach the Deputy Judge President for a date in respect of the
hearing of a special motion.
This is a matter which falls within
the bounds of those matters described by His Lordship the Deputy
Judge President in his directive
on the running of the urgent motion
court dated 4 October 2021. This is one of those matters that is
clogging up an extremely busy
urgent roll in the last week of term.
The parties should take note that at
this stage not all of the matters set down for hearing this week have
been allocated to be
heard.
It is not just for this matter to find
its way to the urgent court on 22 March 2022 and the matter stands to
be struck off the roll
with costs.
In the circumstances, the following
order is granted:
ORDER
1.
The application is struck off the roll for want of urgency.
2.
The applicant is to pay the wasted costs.
I
hand down the judgment.
CRUTCHFIELD,
J
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT
DATE
:
22 March 2022.