SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in
compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
Case No. 024398/2024
1. REPORTABLE: NO
2. OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
3. REVISED: NO
DATE 13 March 2025
SIGNATURE
In ex parte
EDGING ZONE (PTY) LTD Applicant
In re:
EDGE ZONE (PTY) LTD
and
LINDEE HYSEN Respondent
(Identity Number 8[...]
Summary: -Applicant seek condonation, on -compliance with the normal Rules
of Court with regard to service, form and time -periods as contemplated in
Rule 6(12). Uniform Rule 6(12) -Matter is urgent if applicant will not be able to
obtain “substantial redress at a hearing in due course” without at least some
urgent relief - Applicants should set forth explicitly the reasons why the matter
should be treated urgent. -Application is struck off for lack of urgency.
2
JUDGMENT - EX TEMPORE
YENDE AJ
[1] The Court continues to give its ex-tempore judgment in th is matter .
[2] This application is brought in terms of urgency, Uniform Rule 6 (12).
[3] Th e 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.
3
[7] Generally, i n 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;
1 (11/33767) [2011] ZAGPJHC 196 at par 6.
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. More so 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.
4
Order
[11] The application is struck off from the roll for lack of urgency and in light of the
circumstances of this application I make no order as to cost.
J YENDE
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
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 24 February 2025.
Appearances:
for Applicant : Sumenthren Poobalan Pilay
Instructed by: SP Attorneys Incorporated
Waterford Place, 27 Autumn Street
Rivonia, Sandton.
Heard: 24 February 2025
Delivered: 24 February 2025