South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg Support SAFLII

You are here:  SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg >> 2024 >> [2024] ZAGPJHC 373

| Noteup | LawCite

Seketso and Others v South African National Civics Organisation and Others (7016/2019) [2024] ZAGPJHC 373 (17 January 2024)

Download original files

PDF format

RTF format


IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG

 

CASE NO:   7016/2019

DATE:  17-01-2024

1. REPORTABLE:  NO.

2. OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES:  NO.

3. REVISED.

 

In the matter between

 

PACKET SEAKETSO AND OTHERS              First Applicant

 

SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL CIVICS

ORGANISATION JOHANNESBURG CITY

HALL NEC (“2023 SANCO JHB”)                  Second Applicant

 

And

 

2023 SANCO DURBAN                               First Respondent

 

RICHARD (HLOPE) MKHUNGO                   Second Respondent

 

CHRIS MALEMETJA                                  Third Respondent

 

LUCKY BALOI                                           Fourth Respondent

 

SKHUMBUZO MPANZA                               Fifth Respondent

 

MIKE SOKO                                              Sixth Respondent

 

BONGIKHAYA QAMA                                  Seventh Respondent

 

SYLVIA MDAKA                                         Eighth Respondent

 

JUDITH TSHABALA                                   Ninth Respondent

 

ISAAC PLAATJIE                                      Tenth Respondent

 

THE 2023 NIC                                          Eleventh Respondent

 

ALL OTHER PERSONS WHOSE DETAILS

ARE UNKNOWN, PURPORTEDLY ELECTED

UNDER THE AMBIT AND AUSPICES OF

THE CONFERENCE OF 24TH AND 25TH

NOVEMBER 2023                                     Twelfth Respondent

 

ALL OTHER PERSONS PURPORTEDLY

ACTING IN TERMS OF THE AMBIT AND

 AUSPICES OF SANCO ALEXANDER

AND DURBAN                                          Thirteenth Respondent

 

JUDGMENT

 

WEPENER, J:  

 

  The application before me is one for reconsideration of an order issued by this Court in November 2023. However, more important is that the matter is brought in the urgent court.

 

  The main argument was that because of the provisions of rule 6(12)(c) of the Rules of Court, it may be set down in the urgent court.  That rule provides, 6(12)(c):

A person against whom an order was granted in such person’s absence in the urgent application, may, by notice set down the matter for reconsideration of the order.”

 

  It is argued that because of that provision, a matter that was granted in the urgent court, may be brought back for reconsideration in the urgent court.  I do not agree.  A party who makes use of the provisions of the Rules of Court, to bring a matter to the urgent court must, in its own right, make a case while the reconsideration should be heard urgently.

 

  I agree with the judgment of Wilson J, recently published in Volvo Financial Services Southern Africa (Pty) Limited with Adamas Tkolose Trading CC 2023 ZAGP JHC 486 in which he said that:

Urgency is determined not by the nature of the claim brought, but by the circumstances in which the application seeks its adjudication.”

 

  The remaining arguments were of a general nature regarding the rights of the applicants vis a vis the respondents and which would be applicable in a matter whether it is heard urgently or otherwise.

 

  I find that the matter lacks sufficient urgency to be heard out of the normal course in which applications are heard in this Division.

 

  There is no reason why the applicants cannot get redress in due course and have the issues determined.  In any event, the matter contains lengthy contentions and disputes of facts that cannot be properly determined on papers before me, especially in an urgent application,

 

  The urgent application address presented by the applicants in this matter, which took the most part of an hour, underlines the very fact that it is not a matter that can be decided without careful consideration of the many issues that are raised on the papers.

 

  I find that the matter should not have been brought in the urgent court today, whether by the first or the second applicant which makes no difference.

 

  In the circumstances I strike the matter off the roll and I order that the first and second applicants are to pay the respondents costs jointly and severely.

 

WEPENER, J

JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

DATE:  ……………….