IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION , PRETORIA)
Case No. 02136112025
1. REPORTABL E: NO
2. OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
3. REVISED: NO
SIGNATURE
In the ex-parte application; -14 March_2025
DATE
SIYANDASABELO TRADING (PTY) LTD
and
RIVERMEADOW MANOR (PTY) LTD
RMM PROPERTIES (PTY) LTD
RHONA ELIZABETH TOPKA
UDO PAUL TOPKA
WE BUY CARS
LOUIS ESTERHUIZEN First Applicant
First Respondent
Second Respondent
Third Respondent
Fourth Respondent
Fifth Respondent
Sixth Respondent
2
Summary: -Applicant 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 red ress
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.
JUDGMENT - EX TEMPORE
YENDE AJ
[1] This is an application in terms of the Uniform Rule 6 (12) brought before this court
on urgency basis.
[2] As part of the introduction, I deem it fit to refer to the Practice Directive that was
uploaded on caselines and circulated to all parties who had matters that appeared
before this court on urgency basis.
Paragraph (3) thereof states that “An allocation by acting Justice Yende does not
automatically mean that the matter is considered sufficiently urgent to hear on merits.
Submissions will indeed need to be made regarding the ground of urgency. (See Luna
Muebel Vervaardigers and Moyane v Ramaphosa and others in this regard) . Those
case pertinent cases on the issues of urgency and what needs to be pleaded on the
issue of urgency.
[2.1] On paragraph 6.1, as per the court’s directive, I have also highlighted firstly: “ To
set matters down which are not really ripe for hearing, not urgent, in which case there
is self -created urgency, is frowned by this court and it is not permitted”.
3
[2.2] Secondly, I mention that: “Urgent Court is not intended to hear complex factual
and/or legal issues set out over lengthy hundreds of pages which take a long time to
consider and finalize as this tends to clog up an extremely busy urgent court and
prevents the deserving on urgent basis ”.
[2.3] I further on mention that “These complex or long matters are to be removed from
the roll and the parties are advised to seek an allocation from the Deputy Judge
President in a special court on a future date ”.
[3] Now, I turn to the matter before court. I listened to both counsel for the applicant
as well as the counsel for the respondents. It is this court’s strong view that matters
that are urgent should comply with urgency, rule 6(12). It is very much importa nt for
one to consider that urgent court is solely preserved for those matters that are
deservedly urgent and not those matters where urgency is self -created, self -
orientated or perceived to be urgent.
[4] Although, it was submitted by counsel for the applicant that there is imminent harm
to be suffered by the applicant if the order is not granted in their favour. This application
involves two motor vehicles that were part of the sale that took place in 2019.
[5] What struck the court and causes concern is the fact that if theses vehicle were
indeed part of the business transaction, and upon taking ownership of the business
and when the applicant became aware of the fact that these vehicles were not
delivered a nd/ transferred to the applicant. The applicant should have sought recourse
there and then, not to wait for almost six years wherein to start legal action to recover
those vehicles if indeed they belonged to the business.
[6] The truncated timeframes under which this matter took place , under which this
application is premised, makes the court to consider making findings against the
applicant in so far as the urgency is concerned.
4
[7] Having considered the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant per se ,
not even looking at the submissions made by the counsel for the respondents, the
urgency in this matter has been self -created. The urgency averred in the applicant’s
case is not urgency as envisaged in rule 6(12).
[8] In summary, the requirements for an urgent application in general are ;
(a) the applicant has to set out explicitly the circumstances which renders the matter
urgent with full and proper particularity;
(b) reasons must be stated why he/she (believes that he/she cannot get substantial
redress at a hearing in due course;
(c) where final relief is sought the court must even be more circumspect to determine
whether urgency has been established;
(d) the urgency must not be self - created; it should never be a subjective perceived
urgency;
(e) respondent’s prejudice as a result of abridgement of prescribed time limits and an
early hearing is also relevant;
(f) More immediate reaction by the applicant by instituting litigation points favourably
to urgency1.
[9] Was there any urgent litigation instituted by the applicant in these proceedings
since 2019 when he took over the business after the alleged inventory which was
given to IDC raise and /or approve funding for the business, the answer is in the
negative.
1 Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union and Others v Northam Platinum and another [
2016]37 ILJ 2840 (LC) at para 20 -26, and the authorities cited in it; Select PPE ( Pty) Ltd v Ryan
Holmes and Universal Safety Products ( Pty) Ltd, unreported judgment, Labour Court, Case No
115703 -2024.
5
[10] There was no delivery of those vehicles and yet the applicant failed to take any
legal action to recover those vehicles . For almost six years there is nowhere on papers
where the applicant avers that he has been trying to get hold of the respondent and/
or that the respondent had fled the country, thus he could not pursue the respondents.
Even if the respondent had fled the country and hidden th ose vehicles, the court were
open for the applicant to seek recourse on urgent basis.
[11] It is this court’s view that this matter is not deserving of urgency and as such it is
struck off from the r oll and the costs should follow suit.
[12] Counsel for the respondents argued that the costs should be on attorney and
client C scale. I have reconsidered that in light of the peculiar circumstances of this
matter, the court is still unsure as to why did the applicant took so long to seek relief
from the court months after he took ownership of the business.
[13] As the consequence, the court is the satisfied that the applicant in this matter
has failed to convince the court that he has overcome the threshold prescribed in Rule
6(12) and I am of the firm view that the application ought to be struck off from the roll
for lack of urgency.
[14] This application therefore falls to be struck from the roll and I hereby make the
following order.
6
Order
[1] The applicants' urgent application is struck off from the roll for lack of urgency.
[2] The applicant is to pay the respondents cost on party and party scale.
J YENDE
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION , PRETORIA
This judgment was prepared by YENDE AJ. It is handed down electronica lly by
circulation to the parties/their legal representat ives 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(s ) for Applicant: F Letoaba
Appearing with:
Instructed by:
C/O L Makhoba
Msiza & Co. Attorneys
Pantsi Madiba Attorneys
Advocate(s ) for Responden t(s): C Georgiades
Instructed by: HMK Naidoo Attorneys
C/O Muthray and Associates INC
Heard: 26 February 2025
Delivered: 26 February 2025