---

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)

 

Case No. 2025-011702

1.       REPORTABLE: NO

2.       OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO

3.       REVISED: NO

DATE  5 February 2025

     SIGNATURE

 

In the matter between:

ROYAL AM FOOTBALL CLUB (PTY) LTD                                                    

 

and

 

JACO VENTER N.O

(In his capacity as curator bonis of the applicant)

 

THE COMMISSIONER FOR THE SOUTH AFRIAN REVENUE SERVICES

 

THE NATIONAL SOCCER LEAGUE

  

Summary: Urgent Application -Uniform Rule of Court 6(12) -Applicants should set forth explicitly the reasons why the matter should be treated urgent-self -created / subjective perceived urgency does not entitle the applicants to urgent relief- application struck from the roll for lack of urgency. The Sanctity of the Urgent Court has to be preserved for matters that are deservingly, lest the Urgent Court would the flooded with matters that are undeserving, self-created /subjective orientated urgency.

 

 

JUDGMENT- EX TEMPORE

 

 

YENDE AJ

 

[1] The Court continues to give its ex-tempore judgment in this matter.

 

[2] Summary. An application is brought in terms of Rule of Court, Rule 6(1), the applicant should set forth explicitly the reasons why the matter is urgent. Self –created urgency does not entitle the applicants to urgent relief. Application struck from the roll for lack of urgency. The Sanctity of the Urgent Court has to be preserved for matters that are deservingly, lest the Urgent Court would the flooded with matters that are undeserving self-created therefore subjectively orientated urgency.

 

[3] This Court has consistently refused urgent applications in cases where the urgency relied-upon was subjective urgency, clearly self-created. Consistency is important in this context, as it informs the public and legal practitioners that rules of Court and Practice Directives can only be ignored at a litigant's peril. Legal certainty is one of the cornerstones of a legal system based on the Rule of Law.

 

[4]   The test for urgency was eloquently formulated in East Rock Trading (PTY) Ltd and Another v Eagle Valley Granite and Another’s[1] where Justice Notshe AJ held that “There import thereof is that the procedure set out in Rule 6(12) is not for taking. An applicant has to 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”.

 

[10] For all of these reasons and submissions advanced by the applicant together with the respondent’s counsel, I am not convinced that the applicant has overcome the threshold prescribed in Rule 6(12) and I am of the firm view that the application ought to be struck from the roll for lack of urgency.

 

[11] The application therefore falls to be struck from the roll and the costs should follow the suit.

 

Order

 

Accordingly, I make the following order: -

 

(1)            The applicant’s urgent application be and is hereby struck from the roll for lack of urgency.

 

(2)   The applicant shall pay the First and Second Respondent’s costs for the urgent application including the costs of two counsel wherein employed on scale C.

 

(3) No cost to the Third Respondent as it has no issue with the costs.

 

J YENDE

ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA

 

This judgment was prepared by YENDE AJ. It is handed down electronically by circulation to the parties/their legal representatives by e-mail and uploaded on Caselines electronic platform and by publication of the judgment to the South African Legal Information Institute. The date for hand-down is deemed 5 February 2025. 

 

Appearances:

Advocate(s) for Applicant:	R. MASTENBROEK SC
Appearing with:	B. BRAUN
Instructed by:	DBP ATTORNEYS INC
Advocate(s) for First Respondent(s):	E. COETZEE SC
Appearing with:	D. D. SWART
Instructed by:	VZLR ATTORNEYS
Advocate for Second Respondent:	C. NAUDE SC
Instructed by:	MACROBERTS ATTORNEYS
Advocate(s) for Third Respondent:	A. FRANKLIN SC
Appearing with:	M. DE BEER
Instructed by:	WEBBER WENZEL ATTORNEYS
Heard:	5 February 2025
Delivered:	5 February 2025

 

---