About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Mpumalanga High Court, Middelburg
You are here:
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Mpumalanga High Court, Middelburg
>>
2026
>>
[2026] ZAMPMHC 20
|
Noteup
|
LawCite
South African Football Association Gert Sibande Region and Another v Home Defenders FC and Others (2025/117330) [2026] ZAMPMHC 20 (6 May 2026)
Download original files
PDF format
RTF format
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
MPUMALANGA DIVISION,
MIDDELBURG
CASE NO: 2025-117330
(1)
REPORTABLE: NO
(2
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3)
REVISED:
In the matter between:
SOUTH AFRICAN FOOTBALL
ASSOCIATION FIRST APPELLANT
(SAFA) GERT SIBANDE
REGION
SOUTH AFRICAN FOOTBALL
ASSOCIATION SECOND APPLICANT
(SAFA) NATIONAL
And
HOME DEFENDERS
FC
FIRST RESPONDENT
NGOSINGIPHILE
NGWENYA
SECOND RESPONDENT
THE JOHANNESBURG WEST
SHERIFF
THIRD
RESPONDENT
FIRST NATIONAL
BANK
FOURTH RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
PHAHLAMOHLAKA J
[1]
This is an urgent application but in terms
of rule 6(12) of the uniform rules of court. In the amended Notice of
Motion, the applicant
seeks an order in the following terms:
1.1 Condoning
noncompliance with the Rules of Court relating to forms, service and
time periods and directing that this application
be had as one of
urgency in terms of Rule 6(12)
1.2. Pending the
institution and finalization of the applicants’ review in
respect of the taxation of the respondents bill
of costs and or the
setting aside of the taxing master’s
allocatur
the
execution of the taxed bill of costs be suspended and or stayed in
terms of rules 45A including the suspension and or stay
of any writ
of execution and all the execution process pursuant there to;
1.3 That the respondents
be interdicted and restrained from taking any further steps in
execution, including but not limited to
the attachment of the
applicants’ bank accounts and or any other property pending the
finalization of the taxation review;
1.4 Alternatively to
prayer 2, and or to the extent necessary, that any current execution
steps taken without proper service of
the writ on the first applicant
be declared irregular, and of no force and effect, and be set aside;
1.5 That the
respondents be ordered to pay costs of this application including
costs occasioned by urgency on attorney and client
scale;
1.6
Directing
the sheriff of Johannesburg west to immediately suspend and desist
from all execution steps arising from the impugned
writ.
[2]
The application is opposed on the basis that it is not urgent; that
it is an abuse of the court processes because the applicant
brought a
similar application before Fourie AJ on the 28th of April 2026 and
same was struck off the roll for want of urgency.
The respondent
further raises other points
in limine
which I am not intending
to deal with at this stage because they do not relate to process and
procedure on how the matter was set
down.
[3]
I will first deal with urgency because for this court to deal with
the merits of the application the court must be satisfied
that the
applicant has satisfied the requirements set out in rule 6(12)(b) of
the Uniform Rules of Court.
[3]
The parties are
ad idem
that the applicants brought an
application that served before Fourie AJ on 28 April 2026, which
application was struck off the
roll for want of urgency. Perhaps it
is opposite to refer to the Notice of Motion that served before
Fourie AJ on 28 of April 2026.
The applicants then sought relief in
the following terms:
3.1 Condoning
noncompliance with the Rules of Court relating to forms service and
time periods and directing that this application
be heard as one of
urgency in terms of Rule 6(12).
3.2 Declaring that the
issuing and execution of the writ of attachment issued on 25 March
2025 and served on the second applicant
on 21 April 2026 under case
number 2025/ 117330, was premature, unreasonable, and procedurally
improper, having been effected without
compliance with the duty
imposed by rule 9(9) of the Uniform Rules of Court;
3.3
Staying
the execution of the writ of attachment, with immediate effect,
pending the final determination of:
3.3.1
An application reviewing and/or rescinding the taxing master’s
allocatur
; and/or
3.3.2
Any process
required to properly ventilate disputes regarding the taxed costs;
and/or
3.3.3
Any further relief the applicant may seek.
3.4
Directing the Sheriff of Johannesburg West to immediately suspend and
desist
from all execution steps arising
from the impugned writ.
[4]
May I hasten to say the facts informing the urgent application that
served before Fourie AJ and the current application are
materially
identical.
[5]
At the outset, I enquired from Counsel for the applicants to identify
the trigger event for the current application. He referred
to a
notice in terms of rule 45(12)(a) that was served on the applicant on
the 24
th
of April 2026 before the initial application that
was set down and heard on the 28
th of
April 2026.
[6]
counsel for the applicant struggled to answer me when I enquired if
the applicant was aware of the existence of the notice on
the 28
th
of April when the matter served before Fourie AJ and ultimately
struck off the roll for want of urgency. It is understandable for
counsel to struggle to give a definite answer because the notice in
question is the high watermark of the applicant’s case.
[7]
On urgency the applicant avers that the Sheriff has now attached the
second applicant’s bank account, and referral is
made to
annexure S1 which is an email trail where the second applicant was
informing its legal representative about the attachment.
It must be
noted that annexure S1 is dated the 24
th
of April 2026.
The applicant further avers that the sheriff served a notice in terms
of rule 45(12)(a) which notice is defective.
In this regard the
notice was attached as annexure S2.
[8]
I have already indicated that annexures S1 and S2 were at the
disposal of the applicant on the 28
th
of April when the
initial application was heard.
[9]
I refer with approval to an unreported judgment of the Western Cape
Division by Bhoopchand AJ
in Feed Chain Industries and Others v
Technical Systems (Pty) Ltd (Case no: 2025-140896, delivered on 23
January 2026)
where the court remarked as follows:
“
para [10]-A finding that
a matter is not urgent is not res judicata in the strict sense.
However, the circumstances in which a litigant
may re-enroll an
urgent application are if new facts have arisen after the earlier
hearing, or there has been a material change
in the circumstances, or
the earlier court expressly granted leave to enroll…”
[10]
In
casu
no new facts have been established, nor has there been
any material change in the circumstances.
[11]
The current application is a carbon copy of the application that
served on the 28
th
of April.
[12]
I echo the sentiment of Bhoopchad AJ that the repeated enrolment of
identical urgent applications constitutes an abuse of the
court
process. The court must therefore frown upon litigants who approach
the urgent court vexatiously. Matters that are truly
urgent must be
enrolled on the urgent roll, otherwise if the courts allow habitual
litigants to enroll matters that do not belong
to the urgent court
roll, valuable resources are being wasted, which resources ought to
be reserved for deserving matters.
[13]
It is therefore my view that this court must show its dismay by
awarding an appropriate costs order. I agree with Counsel for
the
respondents that the applicants must be mulcted with costs on
attorney and client scale.
[14]
Consequently, the application stands to be struck off the roll for
lack of urgency.
[15]
In the result I make the following order:
1. The application is
struck off the roll for want of urgency.
2. The applicants are
ordered to pay costs on attorney and client scale. Costs of Counsel
on scale C.
K
F Phahlamohlaka
Judge
of The High Court
Appearances;
For
the Applicants: Mr A Dlamini
Instructed
by: MFJassat Damini Inc. Attorneys
Emal:
[email protected]
For
the Respondents: Adv S Zimema
Instructed
by: Mjali & Associates Attorneys
Email:
[email protected]
Date
of Hearing: 5 May 2026
Date
of Judgment: 6 May 2026