Staruts Construction and Projects (Pty) Ltd v Construction Industry Development Board and Another (2025-167557) [2026] ZAGPPHC 73 (2 February 2026)

30 Reportability
Administrative Law

Brief Summary

Administrative Law — Urgency — Application struck from the roll for lack of urgency — Applicant aware of potential removal from register of contractors since April 2025 but delayed approaching the court — Court finding that urgency had been lost and matter not heard in a timely manner.

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA


CASE NO: 2025-167557











In the matter between:

STARUTS CONSTRUCTION AND PROJECTS
(PTY) LTD Applicant

and

THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
DEVELOPMENT BOARD First Respondent

THE BOARD OF THE CONSTRUCTION
INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Second Respondent


J U D G M E N T

The judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties’ legal
representatives by email and uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on Caselines. The
date and time of hand-down is deemed to be 10:00 on 2 February 2026.
TEFFO, J:

(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED.



DATE SIGNATURE

2
[1] The application came before Hassim J on 30 September 2025 , and it
was removed from the roll. The issue of urgency was not dealt with.
[2] It came before me again on 8 October 2025 where urgency became an
issue. It is my view that the matter lost its urgency when the parties allowed it
to be removed from the roll before Hassim J. It was not heard at the time it was
said to be urgent. When it came before me it had already lost its urgency.
[3] Furthermore, it appears from the papers that the applicant was aware as
early as 23 April 2025 of the threats of being removed from the register of
contractors. It should have approached the court as early as 23 April 2025 to
prevent the Board from taking the decision to remove it from the register of
contractors and not wai t to come to court after 20 August 2025 when the
decision had already been taken.
[4] Under the circumstances I find that the matter is not urgent. It is
therefore struck from the roll due to lack of urgency.
Costs
[5] Mr Louw for the respondents sought costs on attorney and client scale.
I am not persuaded that there is any justification to award costs on attorney and
client scale.
[6] Consequently, I make the following order:
1. The matter is struck from the roll.
2. The applicant is to pay costs which costs include the costs of counsel
on Scale B.

3



_______ ________
M J TEFFO
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA


Appearances
For the applicant M R Maphutha
Instructed by Marishane Attorneys
For the respondents M Louw
Instructed by Hahn & Hahn Attorneys
Heard on 8 October 2025