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
>>
2013
>>
[2013] ZAGPPHC 454
|
|
Herman v Minister of Justice And Constitutional Development and Another (61919/13) [2013] ZAGPPHC 454 (27 September 2013)
NORTH GAUTENG
HIGH COURT
PRETORIA
(REPUBLIC OF
SOUTH AFRICA)
Case
no: 61919/13
Date:
27 September 2013
Not
Reportable
Not
of interest to other judges
In the matter between:
DEON-JOHN
HERMAN
.............................................................................
APPLICANT
AND
MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND
CONSTITUTIONAL
DEVELOPMENT
....................................
FIRST
RESPONDENT
NKWADI SIMON
MAREMANE
..........................................
SECOND
RESPONDENT
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT
BAQWA J
[1] I do not propose to reiterate the
facts of the case which are quite apparent too both parties.
[2] This is an application for an order
directing that the appointment of the second respondent by first
respondent be suspended
pending the outcome of the
review application under case number
61424/13 and proceedings issued in the Equality Court, Pretoria.
[3] What is clear from the notice of
motion is that applicant is already seeking relief and is
anticipating getting relief from
either the review court or from the
Equality Court.
[4] It is trite that an urgent court
will grant relief where an applicant cannot obtain redress in due
course. This, from a reading
of the papers does not appear to be such
a case.
[5] Further, an applicant in an urgent
court has to demonstrate the circumstances that lead to the
conclusion that the matter is
urgent.
[6] In casu the applicant got to know
that second respondent had been appointed on or about the 4th of July
2013. He busied himself
with the preparation of a review application
because according to his counsel they did not initially intend to
come to the urgent
court. This period of reaction was further
lengthened by the physical indisposition of his counsel.
[7] Applicant submits that they could
not have taken the matter to this court before knowing whether second
respondent had accepted
appointment.
[8] Applicant further submits that the
application ought to be granted on an urgent basis because he and the
persons currently under
his employ will lose their employment if this
is not done. The basic flaw of this submission is that it ignores
that second respondent
equally has similar responsibilities. The
argument says simply- stop the appointee from resuming employment so
that
I can continue my employment. The
unfairness that would be caused if this were to be accepted is only
too obvious to need any elaboration.
[9] In any event the fact is, applicant
did not come to the urgent court timeously. The plus minus three
months that he lingered
and failed to launch his application in this
court eroded the urgency. If the matter was ever urgent it is now no
longer urgent.
[10] In the Result the following order
is made:
The application is struck off the roll
with costs.
S.A.M BAQWA
(JUDGE OF THE HIGH
COURT)