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. 025033/2025
1. REPORTABLE: NO
2. OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
3. REVISED: NO
DATE 13 March 2025
SIGNATURE
In the ex -parte application; -
EX PARTE JACOB SIBIYA First Applicant
And
OLD MUTUAL LIFE ASSURANCE (SA) LTD First Respondent
SACCAWU NATIONAL PROVIDENT FUND Second Respondent
SIBONGILE SIBIYA (born KGOSANA) Third respondent
ID: 6[...]
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 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 e matter of a civil case
number 025033/2025.
[2] This is an urgent application in terms of the Uniform Rule 6 subsection (12).
[3] This rule states pertinently that the applicant should set forth explicitly the
reasons why the matter should be treated urgent. It is further trite that in doing so,
the applicant should also give reasons as to why he claims that he cannot be
afforded “substantial redress at a hearing in due course”.
[4] This particular application deals with non -compliance with the court rules. As I
indicated earlier on that, the applicant should set forth explicitly the reasons why the
matter is urgent. Self -created urgency does not entitle the applicant to urgent relief.
As the consequent, the application is then struck off from the roll for lack of urgency,
because the sanctity of urgent court has to be preserved for matters that are
deserving. Lest the urgent court would be flooded with matters that are
undeservingly, self -created, therefore subjective -orientated urgency.
[5] This Court has consistently refused to hear urgent applications in cases where
urgency relied upon is subjective urgency, clearly self -created. 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.
3
[6] 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 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 ”. [My
emphasis], the applicant has failed to satisfy the Court that he will “not be afforded
substantial redress at a hearing in due course”.
[6.1] 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.
[6.2] 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. Reasons 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.
[7] In particular case, the applicant, it is common cause that he divorced under case
number 10787/2009. There are two divorce decree one of 2020 and an allegedly
another of one of 2013.
1 (11/33767) [2011] ZAGPJHC 196 at par 6.
[8] The applicant knew about these two different decrees of divorce that relate to
him, one of which prejudices his rights financially so, but he did nothing.
[9] Since 2013 until 19 February 2025, when he was informed that money will be
dispensed to his divorced wife, that’s when then he thought of taking the matter up
and burdening the urgent court, which is already overburdened by matters, some of
which are not deserving of urgency.
[10] I am 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.
[11] This application therefore falls to be struck from the roll and I hereby make the
following order.
Order
[12] The applicants’ urgent application is struck off from the roll for lack of urgency
and in the circumstances of this application, I make no order as to costs.
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 12 March 2025.
Appearances:
Advocate for Applicant : HIV NKABINDE
Instructed by: UNISA LAW CLINIC
Building 12A, Sunnyside Campus
Ref: RM305/09ZK
Heard: 24 February 2025
Delivered: 24 February 2025