application struck from the roll for lack of urgency. The Sanctity of the Urgent
Court has to be preserved for matters that are deservingly , lest the Urgent Court
would the flooded with matters tha t are undeserving, self -created /subjective
orientated urgency.
JUDGMENT - EX TEMPORE
YENDE AJ
[1] The Court continues to give its ex-tempore judgment in this matter.
[2] Summary. An application is brought in terms of Rule of Court, Rule 6(1), the
applicant should set forth explicitly the reasons why the matter is urgent. Self –
created urgency does not entitle the applicants to urgent relief. Application struck
from the roll for lack of urgency. The Sanctity of the Urgent Court has to be
preserved for matters that are deservingly, lest the Urgent Court would the flooded
with matters that are undeserving self -created therefore subjectively orientated
urgency.
[3] This Court has consistently refused urgent applications in cases where the
urgency relied -upon was subjective urgency, clearly self -created. Consistency
is important in this context, as it informs the public and legal practitioners that
rules of Court and Practice Directives can only be ignored at a litigant's peril.
Legal certainty is one of the cornerstones of a legal system based on the Rule of
Law.
[4] The test for urgency was eloquently formulated in East Rock Trading ( PTY) Ltd
and Another v Eagle Valley Granite and Another’s1 where Justice Notshe AJ held
that “There import thereof is that the procedure set out in Rule 6(12) is not for
taking. An applicant has to set forth explicitly the circumstances which he avers
1 (11/33767) [2011] ZAGPJHC 196 at par 6.
This judgment was prepared by YENDE AJ. It is handed down electronically by
circulation to the parties/their legal representatives by e -mail and uploaded on
Caselines electronic platform and by publication of the judgment to the South African
Legal Information Institute. The date for hand -down is deemed 5 February 2025.
Appearances:
Advocate (s) for Applicant : R. MASTENBROEK SC
Appearing with: B. BRAUN
Instructed by: DBP ATTORNEYS INC
Advocate (s) for First Respondent(s) : E. COETZEE SC
Appearing with: D. D. SWART
Instructed by: VZLR ATTORNEYS
Advocate for Second Respondent: C. NAUDE SC
Instructed by: MACROBERTS ATTORNEYS
Advocate (s) for Third Respondent: A. FRANKLIN SC
Appearing with: M. DE BEER
Instructed by: WEBBER WENZEL ATTORNEYS
Heard: 5 February 2025
Delivered: 5 February 2025