A.C v G.R.P (10225/2013) [2023] ZAGPJHC 964 (25 August 2023)

A.C v G.R.P (10225/2013) [2023] ZAGPJHC 964 (25 August 2023)

The court found that the applicant failed to meet the requirements of Rule 6(12)(b) for urgency. The explanation for the delay was not provided in the founding affidavit, and the reasons advanced in the replying affidavit did not justify the matter being heard as urgent. The main application had not been set down for hearing, and the applicant could be afforded substantial redress in due course. The court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the matter urgently and struck the application from the roll for lack of urgency. The request for a preferential date was not within the powers of the urgent court, and the applicant was directed to approach the Deputy Judge President for such...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPJHC 964
Parties
Applicant: A C; Respondent: G R P
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 August 2023
Case Number
10225/2013
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Compel Security for Costs Prior to Hearing of Main Application
Outcome
Application struck from the roll for lack of urgency; costs awarded against the applicant.
Judges
Mdalana-Mayisela
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Urgency, Rule 6 12, Rule 47, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Security for Costs Urgency Rule 6 12 Rule 47 Costs Order

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A C

Applicant

G R P

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Compel Security for Costs Prior to Hearing of Main Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application to compel security for costs should be heard as an urgent matter.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has met the requirements of Rule 6(12)(b) for urgency.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent is liable to furnish security for costs and in the amount demanded.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to meet the requirements of Rule 6(12)(b) for urgency. The explanation for the delay was not provided in the founding affidavit, and the reasons advanced in the replying affidavit did not justify the matter being heard as urgent. The main application had not been set down for hearing, and the applicant could be afforded substantial redress in due course. The court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the matter urgently and struck the application from the roll for lack of urgency. The request for a preferential date was not within the powers of the urgent court, and the applicant was directed to approach the Deputy Judge President for such...

Court Disposition

Application struck from the roll for lack of urgency; costs awarded against the applicant.

Orders

  • The application is struck from the roll for lack of urgency.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay costs.