2
JUDGMENT - EX TEMPORE
YENDE AJ
[1] The Court proceed to deliver its ex -tempore judgment in this matter.
[2] This application is brought in terms of urgency, Uniform Rule 6 (12).
[3] The applicant should set forth explicitly the reasons why the matter is urgent. This
Court has consistently refused to hear urgent applications in cases where urgency
relied upon was subjective urgency, clearly self -created.
[4] Consistency is important in this context, as it informs the public and the legal
practitioners that the 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.
[5] 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 “The 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
render the matter urgent. More importantly, the applicant must state the reasons
why he claims that he cannot be afforded substantial redress at a hearing in due
course the question of whether a matter is sufficiently urgent to be enrolled and has to
be heard as an urgent application is underpinned by the issue of absence of
substantial redress in an application in due course”.
[6] In other words, urgency must be considered together with the issue of whether
there will be substantial redress at a later hearing if the matter is not heard on
an urgent basis.
1 (11/33767) [2011] ZAGPJHC 196 at par 6.
3
[7] Generally, in summary the requirements for an urgent application are:
1. The applicant had to set out explicitly the circumstances which render the matter
urgent with full and proper particularity;
2. The r easons must be stated why he or she believes that he will not get
substantial redress at the hearing in due course;
3.When final relief is sought, the Court must even be circumspect to determine
whether urgency has been established;
4. The urgency must not be self -created;
5. It should never be a subjective perceived urgency.
6. Moreso immediate reaction by applicants by instituting legal action points to the
favourability of urgency.
[8] It is this court submission that having heard the counsel for the applicant in this
matter, the court is satisfied that the applicant has failed to reach the threshold set out
in Rule 6 (12).
[9] This urgency is self -created and does not entitle the applicant to any urgent relief.
For these reasons and submissions advanced by the applicant, I am not convinced
that the applicant has overcome the threshold prescribed in Rule 6(12) that says “A
matter is urgent if the applicant will not be able to obtain substantial redress at a
hearing in due course without at least some urgent relief “. I am of the view that this
application ought to be struck off from the roll for lack of urgency.
[10] As a consequence thereof, this application is struck off from the roll and I make
this order.