JUDGMENT
(Ex-Tempore )
7877/2020_09.06.2026 / AVS
2
anything wrong, procedurally or otherwise, with Noko J's
order. It was as good as conceded by counsel for
Ekurhuleni that the judgment was a judgment to which the
plaintiff in the main action was procedurally entitled. It was
also conceded that no case on the common law for the
rescission of Noko J's judgment was sketched out in the
founding papers. In the absence of such a case, there is no
basis to stay the execution of Noko J’s judgment.
What Ekurhuleni was required to do, as I believe is
trite in cases of this nature, was show prima facie why they
10
had a right to rescind Noko J's order. They elected not to
do that , and instead based their entire case on the
proposition that they would be prejudiced by the execution
of the judgment. That may be true, but prejudice
experience d as a result of the execution of a valid judgment
is not prejudice to which the law has regard. It is simply
what follows once the law takes it s course.
Given that there may be a case for rescission
available to Ekurhuleni, I am not inclined to dismiss the
application outright. I limit myself to the proposition that,
20
since no effort whatsoever has been made to set out a
prima facie right to the rescission of Noko J's judgment, any
prejudice that might be experienced by Ekurhuleni as a
result o f its execution does not give rise to urgency in the
legal sense.