Page 1
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, JOHANNESBURG)
CASE NO: 2026/039564
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED.
SIGNATURE
DATE: 27/3/2026
In the matter between:-
E[...] C[...] S[...] Applicant
(PASSPORT NUMBER: F[...])
and
J[...] P[...] J[...] First Respondent
(ID NUMBER: 7[...])
CURRO (PTY) LTD t/a CURRO MIDRAND Second Respondent
Page 2
REQUEST FOR REASONS IN TERMS OF RULE 49(1)(c)
ALLEN AJ
INTRODUCTION
[1] This is an opposed urgent application for the following interim relief:
“1. That this application be enrolled and heard as a matter of urgency, and that the
forms and time periods prescribed in the Uniform Rules of Court be dispensed
with in terms of Rule 6(12).
2. That the First Respondent be directed to remove the minor child, J[...] K[...]
S[...], from Curro and enrol him at Sparks School, being the school agreed
upon by the parties and one which is within their financial means.
3. That the First Respondent be directed to sign all necessary documentation and
to provide all documents in her possession or under her control required to
facilitate the re-enrolment of the minor child, J[...] K[...] S[...], at Sparks School.
4. That the Second Respondent should assist in the facilitation of the
deregistration of the minor child J[...] K[...] S[...] with Identity number 1[...].
5. That the costs of this application be awarded against the First Respondent on
the scale as between attorney and client.
6. Further and/or alternative relief.”
Page 3
[2] The application was heard on 17 March 2026 and I made the following order:
“1. The application is struck from the roll for lack of urgency;
2. No order as to costs.”
[3] On 20 March 2026 I received a request for written reasons from applicant ’s
attorneys of record as follows:
“KINDLY TAKE NOTICE that the above -mentioned Applicant request for written
reasons. This matter was before the Honourable Acting ALLEN AJ and the Judgment was
delivered EX TEMPORE on the 17th March 2026.”
BACKGROUND
[4] Applicant brought an urgent application to be heard on 3 March 2026 . The
application is opposed by first respondent (“respondent”) and who is also self -
represented. Second respondent did not file any papers. No sheriff’s returns of
service were filed to confirm service, alternatively reasons proffered why the sheriff
could not serve the papers.
[5] Respondent’s notice to oppose was filed late for which condonation is sought.
The answering affidavit was to be filed by 27 February 2026 and was uploaded one
day later on 28 February 2026 with the date of service on applicant not disclosed.
Applicant’s papers are silent in this regard. Applicant’s chronology is incomplete and
unfortunately also silent about respondent’s papers and the date of service. In the
circumstances, and should the answering affidavit have been served one day late ,
condonation is granted.
DISCUSSION
[6] On 3 March 2026 the matter was struck from the roll for no appearance.
Applicant did not file an affidavit to explain the non-appearance prior to re-enrolment.
This is a requirement in terms of paragraph 9.17 of the Practice Manual. Applicant
argued that it was not necessary as a notice of removal was timeously filed. I find
Page 4
this questionable as the notice was uploaded on Caselines only on 5 March 2026 at
11:54, two days after the date of hearing.
[7] The applicant hereafter set the matter down for 10 March 2026 on the
“opposed roll” as per the notice of set down. The matter was not heard and no
endorsement appears on Caselines regarding court proceedings on this day . The
respondent argued that she was present at court. The matter was again set down for
17 March 2026 on the “opposed roll” as per the notice of set down and was heard in
the urgent court. Applicant was unable to explain the discrepancy.
[8] Applicant’s papers are also not compliant with the directive of 1 December
2025 regarding the presentation of bundles and heads of argument on Caselines
and the application was inadvertently processed. Applicant was to upload certificates
to certify that the papers comply with the requirements of this directive , failing which
the registrar shall not further process the matter. The directive further reads that: “…if
a matter is inadvertently processed, the Judge who is eventually called upon to hear the
matter shall strike it from the roll and punitive costs may follow.” (Own emphasis)
[9] Before I struck the matter from the roll, I requested the parties to address me
on urgency.
URGENCY
[10] In the Uniform Rules of Court, Rule 6(12)(b) reads: “‘ In every affidavit filed in
support of any application under paragraph (a) of this subrule, the applicant must set forth
explicitly the circumstances which it is averred render the matter urgent and the reasons why
the applicant claims that applicant could not be afforded substantial redress at a hearing in
due course.”
[11] Urgency is not there for the taking, should not be self -created and reasons
should be provided why substantial redress cannot be achieved in due course.
[12] In East Rock Trading 7 (Pty) Ltd v Eagle Valley Granite (Pty) Ltd (11/33767)
[12] In East Rock Trading 7 (Pty) Ltd v Eagle Valley Granite (Pty) Ltd (11/33767)
[2011] ZAGPJHC 196 (23 September 2011) at para 6 it was stated : “The import
thereof is that the procedure set out in rule 6(12) is not there for taking. An applicant has to
Page 5
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. The question of whether a matter is
sufficiently urgent to be enrolled and heard as an urgent application is underpinned by the
issue of absence of substantial redress in an application in due course. The rules allow the
court to come to the assistance of a litigant because if the latter were to wait for the normal
course laid down by the rules it will not obtain substantial redress.”
[13] In the case of Roets N.O. v SB Guarantee Company (RF) (Pty) Ltd
(36515/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 754 (6 October 2022) at para 26 it was held:
“…urgency which is self -created in a sense that an applicant sits on its laurels or take its
time to bring an urgent application can on its own lead to a decision that a matter is struck off
the roll. It would of course depend on the explanation provided but if the explanation is
lacking and does not cover the full period from when it was realised, or should have been
realised, that urgent relief should be obtained. If this criteria to strike a matter from the roll is
not available to a court, a court would be compelled to deal with an urgent application where
for instance nothing was forthcoming for weeks or months and a day or two before an event
was going to take place a party who wants to stay that event can approach a court and
argue that if an order is not immediately granted such party would not obtain substantial
redress in due course. If this is the approach to be adopted by a court there exist no reason
why any explanation for the delay should be provided at all. An applicant only has to show
that should interim relief not be granted it will suffer irreparable harm.”
[14] In the case of MM v NM and Others (15133/23P) [2023] ZAKZPHC 117 (18
[14] In the case of MM v NM and Others (15133/23P) [2023] ZAKZPHC 117 (18
October 2023) at para 10 it was said about urgency: “If this was not a criterion by which
one could strike a matter from the roll a court would be compelled to deal with an urgent
application where for instance nothing was forthcoming for weeks or months and a day or
two before an event was going to take place a party who wants to stay that event can
approach a court and argue that if an order is not immediately granted such party would not
obtain substantial redress in due course. If this approach was adopted in matters of urgency
there exists no reason why any explanation for the delay should be provided at all. An
applicant would only have to show that should interim relief not be granted it will suffer
irreparable harm. This would be an untenable situation.”
[15] Respondent referred to “extra maths lessons ” the minor child needed since 1
July 2025 and telephonic discussions between the parties thereafter . This resulted in
Page 6
the discussion of 15 December 2025 and agreement to the current school. Applicant
did not proffer any substance to counter these allegations. On 19 December 2025
respondent corresponded with the erstwhile school via email as per the agreement
between the parties. The email was forwarded to applicant , marked “FYI” , for his
information. This correspondence was annexed to applicant’s founding affidavit,
annexure “ESC 7”, confirming that he did receive it at the time. In the replying
affidavit applicant in paragraph 23 responded as follows: “There was no agreement
regarding enrolment at Curro. Annexure “A2” reflects that I was merely marked “FYI,”
indicating that the decision had already been made.” It is un disputed that applicant
received the email on 19 December 2025.
[16] The settlement agreement between the parties makes provision for mediation
in the event of disagreement. If, for a moment , it is accepted that there was
disagreement, then applicant elected not to make use of mediation since at least 19
December 2025. No family advocate report was submitted as to what will be in the
best interests of the minor child predicated on the factual matrix disclosed of the
minor’s challenges that the previous school will be better suited than the current
school. Applicant’s tender of a 20% contribution towards school fees instead of the
50% confirms the suitability of the current school.
[17] The minor is enrolled at Curro and attend the new school from 14 January
2026. Respondent referred to telephonic discussions between her and the minor with
applicant prior to this day and thereafter. Respondent did not proffer any substance
to counter these allegations.
[18] On 31 January 2026 responde nt forwarded an email to applicant which from
the onset reads: “As you are aware …”. Applicant did not take issue herewith and on 4
February 2026 responded that his attorneys will contact her. From this date another
February 2026 responded that his attorneys will contact her. From this date another
month followed when the matter was initially set down and after it was struck from
the roll , another two weeks followed when the matter was eventually heard. This
matter was therefore heard approximately three months after applicant became
aware of the change of schools and more than two months after the mino r’s first day
in the new school.
Page 7
[19] Applicant’s trigger for urgency is predicated on a unilateral decision taken
“without consultation, agreement, or consideration” of his financial capacity substantiated
by applicant’s disclosure of the 19 December 2025 email . Applicant avers in the
replying affidavit that he only became aware on 31 January 2026 which I find
questionable. Should it for a moment be accepted that applicant did not know of the
developments since December 2025 and his child’s new school until 31 January
2026, applicant took another six weeks before the matter was heard.
CONCLUSION
[20] I determined that there were no certificates and the papers were not compliant
with the directive of 1 December 2025 resulting in a striking order. I further
determined that the matter was not urgent and struck it from the roll for lack of
urgency with no order as to costs.
[21] These are my reasons.
_____________________________________
ALLEN AJ
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT,
GAUTENG DIVISION JOHANNESBURG
This judgment was prepared by Acting Judge Allen. It is handed down electronically
by circulation to the parties or their legal representatives by email, by uploading to
the electronic file of this matter on Caselines, and by publication of the judgment to
the South African Legal Information Institute. The dat e for hand -down is deemed to
be 27 March 2026.
HEARD ON: 17 March 2026
REASONS REQUESTED ON: 20 March 2026
DECIDED ON: 27 March 2026
For the Applicant: Mr.T. Mukwani
Instructed by: T. Mukwani Attorneys
For the First Respondent: In Person
For the Second Respondent: No Appearance