About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2021
>>
[2021] ZAGPPHC 474
|
|
Nkosi v African Pride Irene (12473/2021) [2021] ZAGPPHC 474 (23 March 2021)
(Inlexso Innovative Legal
Services) of
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA
CASE
NO
: 12473/2021
DATE
:
2021.03.23
NOT
REPORTABLE
NOT
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES
REVISED
In
the matter between
REBONENG
MEISIE
NKOSI Applicant
and
AFRICAN
PRIDE
IRENE Respondent
JUDGMENT
DOSIO
,
AJ
: Having heard counsel in respect to
the question of urgency the following aspects appear to be present.
The
applicant was informed by email on the 12
th
of February
2021, that the venue she had booked was no longer available.
According to the applicant’s counsel, ongoing talks
proceeded
between the applicant’s legal representative and the respondent
legal representatives. They received a further
letter from the
respondents dated the 4
th
of March 2021 which restated the
position that the venue was not available.
I
find it strange that ongoing talks proceeded between the applicant
and the respondent emanating from the initial refusal to host
the
applicant’s function on the 2
nd
, 3
rd,
and
4
th
of April when the answer was clearly stated in an
email dated the 12
th
of February 2021. The email is very
clear.
In
light thereof, the applicant had an opportunity to enrol this matter
already on the urgent roll for Tuesday’s date of the
16
February, 23
February, 12 March, and 9 March. The
applicant contents the matter indeed was enrolled on 11 March 2021,
which is in fact a Thursday,
but that it was removed from the roll
due to the non-compliance of the directives. In response to the
Court’s questions why
the matter was not then enrolled on the
following Tuesday namely 16 March 2021 the answer given is that
a date of 18 March 2021
was given but when the applicant
wanted to proceed with this matter on 18 March, they were told by the
secretary of the judge on
urgent duty that this could not proceed and
that a date of 23 March was given.
On
the notice of enrolment, this appears somewhat different. As a notice
of enrolment loaded on CaseLines which is dated 12 March
2021 which
is the day after the matter was removed on 11 March 2021 specifically
involves matter for 23 March 2021 and not
16 March 2021 which is
what the applicant’s counsel states and which was, in fact, the
next available date.
In
the answering affidavit that has been filed, there is a version given
that the applicant’s and respondent’s representatives
a
Mr C[?] had discussed tentative alternative dates to the 2
nd
,
3
rd,
and 4
th
of April 2021 namely the 24 of
April 2021 and the 1
st
of May 2021. In response to the
Court’s questions why there is no replying affidavit to dispute
these dates, this was met
by a reply by the applicant’s counsel
that is in the founding affidavit. The founding affidavit does not
deal with the dates
24 April 2021 or 1 May 2021 which were clearly
alternative dates suggested in able to proceed on the 2
nd
,
3
rd,
and 4
th
of April 2021. The transcript
remains undisputed clearly suggest that the decision as to the final
dates would have been agreed
upon after 15 February 2021.
The
applicant’s dispute this. However, there is no replying
affidavit to place this on record. It is clear, all along, another
date in April namely 24 April 2021 is available to the applicant to
host her event. For the Court, the month of April being the
applicant’s wedding anniversary month, her husband and son’s
birthday month and even if this date of 24 April 2021
was not
available 1 May 2021 which was the tentative date agreed upon was a
date which in the conversation which is not dispute
is a date which
is closer to the applicants own birthday month, which is in May.
Accordingly,
the issue of not finding a venue in time is all superfluous as the
actual venue of the respondent and not another venue
was, in fact,
available meeting the same standards but on the dates 24 April or 1
May 2021.
Accordingly, I find that:
1.
Urgency
is self-created.
2.
The
issue of damages of the applicant may be addressed with sufficient
redress in due course on the ordinary rolls. As to cost,
I do not
believe this is a matter that warrants a punitive cost order.
Accordingly, the applicant is to pay the cost of this application.
That
is the order of this Court.
DOSIO,
AJ
ACTING JUDGE OF THE
HIGH COURT
DATE
:
23/07/2021