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. 2025-019481
1. REPORTABLE: NO
2. OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
3. REVISED: No
DATE 13 March 2025
SIGNATURE
In the matter between:
ANDREW MATTHYS First Applicant
and
MINISTER OF DEFENCE AND MILITARY VETERANS First Respondent
Summary: -Applicants seek condonation, non -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 for urgent relief granted.
2
JUDGMENT - EX TEMPORE
YENDE AJ
[1] Firstly , the court would like to record its displeasure and reiterate its displeasure
in the manner in which the respondent has conducted its case, more so this urgent
application which was launched before this court.
[2] At the inception of theses proceedings it became apparent that the respondent
had not complied with the directives of this court. However, the court gave the
counsel for the respondent an opportunity to address the court as to the non -
compliance thereof which it did. Counsel for the applicant was also given an
opportunity to address the non -compliance.
[3] Having heard both, counsels the court found that it would be in the interest of
justice to hear this matter in light of the fact that although caselines was locked as
per the courts supplementary directive the respondent was able to reply to the
applicant’s founding affidavit and similarly the applicant was able to reply to the
respondent’s answering affidavit and at the hearing of this urgent applicant both
parties seemed ready to proceed with the urgent application. The court in the interest
of justice condoned the non -compliance with the court supplementary directive Thus,
the matter proceeded with quiet ease though the parties seemed averse to one
another.
3
[4] Points in limine were raised, the court heard same and counsel for the applicant
was given an opportunity also to reply to the points in limine that were raised by the
respondent counsel. The court considered the points in limine raised and justifiably
dismissed same for reasons that would be mentioned later on this ex- tempore
judgment
[5] In this urgent application the applicant seek s relief, either final or interim, to the
effect that he and his co -employees may not be forced to move into a dangerous
building that was severely damaged by fire, has not been restored into a proper,
conducive and habitable human structure . The said building has not been used since
2013 , that is what is alleged in the founding affidavit.
[6] It appears that o n 3rd February 2025 the applicant received a verbal instruction,
an order, that their office would be relocated to the Bester Building, situated at SA
ARMY Headquarters compound 981, D equar Road , Salvokop , Pretoria . The said
building has no basic human amenities such as electricity, water and sanitation
(there are no functional toilets in the building) it is a dilapidated building similar to
buildings in a war -torn zone. This information is clearly displayed on documents that
were uploaded on caselines.
[7] The SANDF(MILITARY) is aware that the said building is not fi t for purpose and
accordingly not habitable by humans and a health hazard to human being. As recent
as on 3 February 2025 a report was received about this building and the report
concludes to the effect that:
4
“9 All hazards identified in this report and displayed in photos are regarded as
non-compliance with the Occupational Health and Safety Act, 58 of 1993,
10 The SO2 OHS SA Army Support Formation hereby recommends that all
the above -listed hazards that may pose a risk to the occupants must be
attended to before occupants can occupy the building”.
[8] To this day of the hearing of this application it seems to appear that nothing has
been done to restore the said building and to make same to be compliant with the
occupation Health and Safety Act 58 of 19 93. In fact, from the photos attached as
annextures to the applicant’s founding affidavit , the building is not by any world
standards suitable for human habitation let alone the SA Military personnel who m
one should be regarded a s the shield and pride of any nation world over.
[9] The applicant contends the occupation of this building in its current lamentable
state violates his and other fellow co - worker ’s constitutional right to human dignity,
right to life, privacy, a healthy working environment that is not harmful to human
health and well-being . These rights are enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic
of SA Act 108 of 1996.
5
[10] There is however, to mention that there are other buildings that are occupied,
the court does not know on what basis were those buildings occupied when no
report has been obtained from the independent engineer to give a comprehensive
report to the effect that the said building is conducive for human habitation in
contrast to the gloss pictures handed in late to the court that depicts the certain
portions of the building to be good looking.
[11] The court, as it sits here does not know which part of the building is habitable,
which part of the building is not habitable.
[12] Now I turn to make a ruling with regard to the urgency of this application.
Urgency
[13] 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 “Th e 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”.
6
[13.1] In other words, urgency must be considered together with the issue of
whether
there w ould be substantial redress at a later hearing if the matter is not heard
on an urgent basis.
[13.2] In the matter of Mogalakwena Municipality v Provincial Executive Council and
others2 Justice Tuchten held at paragraphs 64 as follows:
1 (11/33767) [2011] ZAGPJHC 196 at par 6.
2 2016 (4) SA 99 (GP).
“It seems to me that when urgency is in issue the primary investigation should be to
determine whether the applicant will be afforded substantial redress at a hearing in
due course. If the applicant cannot establish prejudice in this sense, the application
cannot be urgent ”.
[14] It is the court’s strong convictions that in a country like ours, S outh Africa where
the Constitution is the supreme law of the land which enjoys the Bill of Rights ,
fundamental basic human rights that are enriched in the Constitution that
applications involving deprivations of human life, human liberties, threats to human
health and well-being, the loss of one ’s shelter or some other basic human
essentials of daily life. In this regard I think of water, sanitation, electricity,
destruction of property , including financial deprivation, in all probabilities enjoys
urgency.
7
[15] No rightful thinking Army Ministry could ever allow his/her Military personnel
and/or Army support formation personnel to risk and compromise their lives, well-
being, and occupy such a dilapidated, vandalized, non - compliance with Health and
Safety Act unless he/she wants them to perish.
[16] Based on our courts stare dec isis, precedence mentioned supra I am convinced
that the applicant in casu have met the threshold as required in Rule 6(12) and that it
is abundantly clear that the situation the applicant and his co -workers find
themselves i n is dire and is not about whether they could not be able to obtain
“substantial redress at a hearing in due course ”.
[17] Therefore, on a conspectus of all the evidence set out herein and f or all the
reasons and submissions advanced by the applicant together with the respondent’s
counsel , this court is convinced that the applicant has overcome the threshold
prescribed in Rule 6(12) (b).
[18] As the consequent I make following order:
Order :
1. That this matter is treated as one of urgency and that for the reasons mentioned
supra condonation is granted for the non -compliance with the normal Rules of Court
with regard to service, form and time -periods as contemplated in Rule 6(12).
8
2. The following interim relief is granted, pending the finalization of investigations by
the Department of Labour and/or any internal appeal processes in relation thereto,
and/or any possible subsequent Court proceedings in terms of the Occupational
Health and Safety Act , 85 of 1993 and/or Court proceedings to review and set aside
the instructi ons to move into the relevant building:
2.2. The First to Fifth Respondents are interdicted from requiring that the Applicant,
or any other employee work to from the Bester Building, situated at 9[...] D[...] Road,
Salvokop, Pretoria;
3. That the First to Fifth Respondents are ordered to pay the cost of this application
on an attorney and client scale, jointly and severally, the one to pay the other/s to be
absolved.
J YENDE
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
9
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 26 February 2025.
Appearances:
Advocate for Applicant : JGC Hamman
Instructed by: Griesel van Zanten Inc
Advocate for Respondent(s) : B Monyeki
Instructed by: State Attorney Pretoria
Heard: 26 February 2025
Delivered: 26 February 2025