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
>>
2024
>>
[2024] ZAGPJHC 373
|
|
Seketso and Others v South African National Civics Organisation and Others (7016/2019) [2024] ZAGPJHC 373 (17 January 2024)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO
: 7016/2019
DATE
: 17-01-2024
1. REPORTABLE: NO.
2. OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES:
NO.
3. REVISED.
In
the matter between
PACKET
SEAKETSO AND OTHERS
First Applicant
SOUTH
AFRICAN NATIONAL CIVICS
ORGANISATION
JOHANNESBURG CITY
HALL
NEC (“2023 SANCO JHB”)
Second Applicant
And
2023
SANCO DURBAN First
Respondent
RICHARD
(HLOPE) MKHUNGO Second
Respondent
CHRIS
MALEMETJA Third
Respondent
LUCKY
BALOI Fourth
Respondent
SKHUMBUZO
MPANZA Fifth
Respondent
MIKE
SOKO Sixth
Respondent
BONGIKHAYA
QAMA Seventh
Respondent
SYLVIA
MDAKA Eighth
Respondent
JUDITH
TSHABALA Ninth
Respondent
ISAAC
PLAATJIE Tenth
Respondent
THE
2023 NIC Eleventh
Respondent
ALL
OTHER PERSONS WHOSE DETAILS
ARE
UNKNOWN, PURPORTEDLY ELECTED
UNDER
THE AMBIT AND AUSPICES OF
THE
CONFERENCE OF 24TH AND 25TH
NOVEMBER
2023 Twelfth
Respondent
ALL
OTHER PERSONS PURPORTEDLY
ACTING
IN TERMS OF THE AMBIT AND
AUSPICES
OF SANCO ALEXANDER
AND
DURBAN Thirteenth
Respondent
JUDGMENT
WEPENER,
J
:
The application
before me is one for reconsideration of an order issued by this Court
in November 2023. However, more important
is that the matter is
brought in the urgent court.
The main argument
was that because of the provisions of rule 6(12)(c) of the Rules of
Court, it may be set down in the urgent court.
That rule
provides, 6(12)(c):
“
A
person against whom an order was granted in such person’s
absence in the urgent application, may, by notice set down the
matter
for reconsideration of the order.”
It is argued that
because of that provision, a matter that was granted in the urgent
court, may be brought back for reconsideration
in the urgent court.
I do not agree. A party who makes use of the provisions of the
Rules of Court, to bring a matter
to the urgent court must, in its
own right, make a case while the reconsideration should be heard
urgently.
I agree with the
judgment of Wilson J, recently published in
Volvo
Financial Services Southern Africa (Pty) Limited with Adamas Tkolose
Trading CC
2023 ZAGP JHC 486 in which
he said that:
“
Urgency
is determined not by the nature of the claim brought, but by the
circumstances in which the application seeks its adjudication.”
The remaining
arguments were of a general nature regarding the rights of the
applicants
vis a vis
the respondents and which would be applicable in a matter whether it
is heard urgently or otherwise.
I find that the
matter lacks sufficient urgency to be heard out of the normal course
in which applications are heard in this Division.
There is no reason
why the applicants cannot get redress in due course and have the
issues determined. In any event, the matter
contains lengthy
contentions and disputes of facts that cannot be properly determined
on papers before me, especially in an urgent
application,
The urgent
application address presented by the applicants in this matter, which
took the most part of an hour, underlines the very
fact that it is
not a matter that can be decided without careful consideration of the
many issues that are raised on the papers.
I find that the
matter should not have been brought in the urgent court today,
whether by the first or the second applicant which
makes no
difference.
In the
circumstances I strike the matter off the roll and I order that the
first and second applicants are to pay the respondents
costs jointly
and severely.
WEPENER, J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
DATE
:
……………….