Big Blue Marketing CC v King Sabata Dalindyebo Local Municipality (4308/2016) [2017] ZAECMHC 2 (16 February 2017)

Big Blue Marketing CC v King Sabata Dalindyebo Local Municipality (4308/2016) [2017] ZAECMHC 2 (16 February 2017)

The court found that the applicant failed to establish sufficient urgency to justify the truncated time periods and urgent relief sought. The delay in approaching the court was unexplained and indicative of self-created urgency. The applicant did not seek formal leave for urgent relief in its notice of motion and failed to set out adequate grounds for urgency in its founding affidavit. The court held that the applicant had a satisfactory alternative remedy in the form of the pending action for specific performance and enrichment, which could be amended to address any further claims. As a result, the applicant was not entitled to an interdict. The court also determined that the applicant...

Citation
[2017] ZAECMHC 2
Parties
Applicant: Big Blue Marketing CC; Respondent: King Sabata Dalindyebo Local Municipality
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 February 2017
Case Number
4308/2016
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Judgment After Full Exchange of Affidavits and Argument
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel and wasted costs for postponements.
Judges
RWN Brooks
Legal Topics
Urgent Interdict, Specific Performance, Alternative Remedy, Self Created Urgency, Tender Process, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Urgent Interdict Specific Performance Alternative Remedy Self Created Urgency Tender Process Costs Orders

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Big Blue Marketing CC

Applicant

King Sabata Dalindyebo Local Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Judgment After Full Exchange of Affidavits and Argument

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant established sufficient urgency to justify truncated time periods and urgent relief.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to an interim or final interdict restraining the respondent from proceeding with the tender process.
  3. 3 Whether a satisfactory alternative remedy exists for the applicant in the form of the pending action for specific performance and enrichment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to establish sufficient urgency to justify the truncated time periods and urgent relief sought. The delay in approaching the court was unexplained and indicative of self-created urgency. The applicant did not seek formal leave for urgent relief in its notice of motion and failed to set out adequate grounds for urgency in its founding affidavit. The court held that the applicant had a satisfactory alternative remedy in the form of the pending action for specific performance and enrichment, which could be amended to address any further claims. As a result, the applicant was not entitled to an interdict. The court also determined that the applicant...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel and wasted costs for postponements.

Orders

  • The applicant is directed to pay the costs of the application for leave to file its supplementary replying affidavit, including costs occasioned by the respondent's opposition thereto and the costs of two counsel where so employed.
  • The application launched by the applicant on 23 November 2016 is dismissed with costs, including the wasted costs reserved on 30 November 2016 and 15 December 2016 respectively and the costs occasioned by the employment of two counsel by the respondent where this occurred.