143809/2024 -awb 2 JUDGMENT
20-05-2025
that the respondent, FNB, acting in its capacity as her late
father’s executor, unlawfully devolved the estate , in its
entirety , upon Mr. Lebelo’s deceased father's wife.
I can understand , at the very abstract level, the
frustration that litigants, especially those who, like Ms.
Lebelo, cannot afford legal representation, feel with the pace
with which the law moves. But the urgent court is reserved
for truly urgent matters. An urgent matter is a matter in
which an applicant requires that the court intervene in order
to preserve their rights pending the resolution of a dispute in 10
the ordinary course, or in which the court makes a final order
necessary to avoid some calamity that will ensue if the
applicant is required to seek relief in the ordinary course.
Unfortunately , Ms Lebelo has not set out in her
papers the exigencies of her situation and the reasons why
the urgent court is required to intervene in her case today,
essentially by granting the same relief which she seeks in an
application that has been brought in the ordinary course.
It follows that I have no idea one way or the other
whether this application might be urgent. The facts have not 20
been set out.
The question before me is what relie f I should grant,
given that realit y. One option would be to strike the
application from the roll. The effect of this would be that the application may not be enrolled again in urgent court without
143809/2024 -awb 3 JUDGMENT
20-05-2025
the leave of the Judge then presiding and without Ms Lebelo
having explained why , notwithstanding the striking order , she
should be allowed to approach the urgent court again.
The other option is simply to remove the matter from
the roll, which would leave the way open for Ms Lebelo to set
out in some detail, if she can, the reasons why her
application should be given preference , and to approach the
urgent court simply be setting the matter down again.
G iven that Ms Lebelo is a lay litigant and may not
have been familiar with the rules applicable to enrol ling an 10
application in urgent court , I am inclined to make an order
of the second type. This means that I shall remove the
matter from the roll, but Ms Lebelo , if she can , will be
entitled to file an affidavit setting out contentions which may
convince a Judge in a future urgent court to consider the
matter urgently.
Ms Lebelo must of course be cautioned that if she
brings the matter back before an urgent court without setting
those facts out, or if she set out facts that do not convince another judge of the urgency she claims , then she is at risk
20
of an order striking her application from the roll and very possibly also at risk of a cost s order , which will compound
the financial difficult ies she has told me she has.
Nonetheless, today, I prefer to show lenience.
Ms Webster , who appeared for FNB , asks for costs .