IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN)

In the matter between:

and

THE PRESIDENT F THE 

						JUDGMENT

ALLIE. J

In this matter the Court has to decide primarily at this stage whether the relief sought by the applicant is of such an urgent nature that it warrants being placed on this Court's roll whether it be on Tuesday or today, as it is, whether it warrants being placed on this Court's roll as a matter of urgency and thereby obviously eclipsing the possibility of other litigants

"Practitioners should carefully analyse the facts of each case to determine for the purpose of setting the case down for a hearing whether a greater or lesser degree of relaxation of the rules and of the ordinary practice of the Court is required. The degree of relaxation should not be greater than the exigency of the case demands. It must be commensurate there with. Mere lip service to requirements of Rule 6 (12) (b) will not do and an applicant must make out a case in the founding affidavit to justify the particular extent of the departure from the norm which is involved in the time and day for which the matter be set down."

Further in that same case at 139 E the Court says the following;
'Although tt happens far too frequently that urgent applications are set down on the simple basis that just any element of urgency justified them being set down at any time without any consideration of the simple and logical factors which I have canvassed I nevertheless believe that this is not a general practice which is so deeply ingrained that a warning to desist should first be given."

That then are the factors which I wish to draw attention to, which has been outlined in that particular case dealing with the issue of urgency.

"In terms of Rules 27 and 6 (12) applicants thus had to show good cause why the time should be abridged and why applicants could not be afforded substantial redress at a hearing in due course. The case for urgency had to be made out in the supporting affidavits."

Further on in that case, at 112H

I specifically quoted from the abovementioned cases to point out that the purpose of creating an urgent roH and creating a rule such as Rule 6 (12) and Rule 6 (5) is precisely so that litigants and legal representatives of litigants in matters actually deal fairly with fellow litigants as well as with the Court in terms of setting matters down so that matters of urgency only are dealt with.

Now I turn to the applicants founding affidavit and in particular to paragraph 31 thereof where the applicant seeks to make out a case for urgency, and I quote the following from paragraph 31;

"As set out in the aforegoing averments this application is urgent. Jf a visa is not issued to allow the Dalai Lama to enter South Africa in the nearest future, the purpose of the Dalai Lama's entry and my constitutional right to participate in it will be irreparably jeopardised as;
(1) The intended peace conference will not be held.
(2) The Dalai Lama will not return to South Africa any time soon.
(3) The Dalai Lama and I cannot discuss urgent issues of present day world politics relating to the present political situation in South Africa and Tibet.
(4)	The Dalai Lama, I and many other South Africans will not be able to jointly muster spiritual energies and pray for peaceful and serene elections on April 22 2009.
(5)	The damage to the international image of our country will be irreparable if the impugned action is allowed to stand without an immediate judicial reaction."

In the circumstances this matter is then struck from the roll and the issue of the costs of today, as wefl as the wasted costs of Tuesday, the 31 March 2009, are then to stand over for later determination.

ALLIE, J