Computaasist (Pty) Ltd and Others v Coetzee and Others (2024-138494) [2025] ZAGPPHC 126 (6 February 2025)
- Citation
- [2025] ZAGPPHC 126
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Yende
- Case number
- 2024-138494
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Yende
- Case number
- 2024-138494
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the applicants failed to establish objective urgency as required by Rule 6(12) of the Uniform Rules of Court. The urgency alleged was self-created and subjectively perceived, as the applicants did not pursue interim relief when the matter was first enrolled and allowed postponement without seeking urgent intervention. The court emphasized that the sanctity of the urgent court must be preserved for genuinely urgent matters and that legal certainty requires consistent application of procedural rules. As the applicants could obtain substantial redress at a hearing in due course, the application was struck from the roll for lack of urgency, and costs were awarded against the applicants.
Court disposition
Application struck from the roll for lack of urgency; costs awarded against the applicants.
Orders
- The applicants' urgent application is struck from the roll for lack of urgency.
- The applicants shall pay the respondents' costs for the urgent application, including the costs of two counsel where employed on scale C.
02
Material facts
Parties
Computaasist (Pty) Ltd
Applicant Counsel: Frans RautenbachPharmadata (Pty) Ltd T/A Propharm
Applicant Counsel: Frans RautenbachCompharm (Pty) Ltd
Applicant Counsel: Frans RautenbachKeenland (Pty) Ltd
Applicant Counsel: Frans RautenbachEpharm (Pty) Ltd
Applicant Counsel: Frans RautenbachWecare Independent Pharmacy Networks (Pty) Ltd
Applicant Counsel: Frans RautenbachNicolaas Jonannes Coetzee
Respondent Counsel: Reinard Michau SCChristopher Coetzee
Respondent Counsel: Reinard Michau SCLouis Coetzee
Respondent Counsel: Reinard Michau SCIdealweb (Pty) Ltd
Respondent Counsel: Reinard Michau SCNew Light Co (Pty) Ltd
Respondent Counsel: Reinard Michau SCDrug Complienze (Pty) Ltd
Respondent Counsel: Reinard Michau SCHester Coetzee
Respondent Counsel: Reinard Michau SC03
Procedural history
Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Strike From the Roll for Lack of Urgency
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicants have established sufficient urgency to justify hearing the matter on an urgent basis.
- 02
Whether the applicants are entitled to urgent relief under Rule 6(12) of the Uniform Rules of Court.
- 03
Whether the urgency alleged by the applicants is self-created or subjectively perceived.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicants argued that the matter was urgent due to ongoing breaches of fiduciary duties by the respondents while still employed by the applicants. They contended that immediate intervention by the court was necessary to prevent further prejudice and that substantial redress would not be available at a later hearing. The applicants relied on the inherent urgency of restraint of trade matters and sought to persuade the court that the circumstances justified urgent relief.
- Respondent
- The respondents argued that the urgency was self-created and not objectively established. They pointed out that the applicants failed to pursue interim relief when the matter was first enrolled and allowed postponement without seeking urgent intervention. The respondents submitted that the applicants could obtain substantial redress at a hearing in due course and that the requirements of Rule 6(12) had not been met. They requested that the application be struck from the roll and that costs be awarded against the applicants.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
East Rock Trading (Pty) Ltd and Another v Eagle Valley Granite and Another (11/33767) [2011] ZAGPJHC 196 at par 6.
Applicants must explicitly set out the circumstances rendering the matter urgent and provide reasons why substantial redress cannot be afforded at a hearing in due course.
- 02
Vumatel (Pty) Ltd v Majra and others [2018] 39 ILJ 2771 (LC) at para 4-5; Ecolab (Pty) Ltd v Thoabala and another [2017] 38 ILJ 2741 (LC) at para 20.
Urgency must be considered together with whether substantial redress is available at a later hearing; urgency must not be self-created or subjectively perceived.
- 03
Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union and others v Northam Platinum and another [2016] 37 ILJ 2840 (LC) at paras 20-26.
Where final relief is sought, the court must be circumspect in determining whether urgency has been established; respondent's prejudice and applicant's promptness are relevant factors.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the applicants failed to establish objective urgency as required by Rule 6(12) of the Uniform Rules of Court. The urgency alleged was self-created and subjectively perceived, as the applicants did not pursue interim relief when the matter was first enrolled and allowed postponement without seeking urgent intervention. The court emphasized that the sanctity of the urgent court must be preserved for genuinely urgent matters and that legal certainty requires consistent application of procedural rules. As the applicants could obtain substantial redress at a hearing in due course, the application was struck from the roll for lack of urgency, and costs were awarded against the applicants.
Obiter and limits
- Legal certainty is a cornerstone of the rule of law and requires consistent application of court rules and practice directives.
- The urgent court should not be flooded with undeserving matters based on self-created or subjectively perceived urgency.
Court disposition
Application struck from the roll for lack of urgency; costs awarded against the applicants.
- The applicants' urgent application is struck from the roll for lack of urgency.
- The applicants shall pay the respondents' costs for the urgent application, including the costs of two counsel where employed on scale C.
Source and reliance status
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Judgment
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
Case No. 2024-138494
1. REPORTABLE: NO
2. OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
3. REVISED: NO
DATE 06 February 2025
SIGNATURE
In the matter between:
COMPUTAASIST (PTY) LTD
PHARMADATA (PTY) LTD T/A PROPHARM
COMPHARM (PTY) LTD
KEENLAND (PTY) LTD
EPHARM (PTY) LTD
WECARE INDEPENDENT PHARMACY NETWORKS (PTY)LTD
And
NICOLAAS
JONANNES COETZEE
CHRISTOPHER
COETZEE
LOUIS
COETZEE
IDEALWEB (PTY) LTD
NEW LIGHT CO (PTY) LTD
DRUG COMPLIENZE (PTY) LTD
HESTER
COETZEE
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 were 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”.
[5] In other words, urgency must be considered together with the issue of whether there will be substantial redress at a later hearing if the matter is not heard on an urgent basis.
[6]. In Vumatel (Pty) Ltd v Majra and others[2] the Court in the context of restraints of trade said the following about urgency:
“I accept that restraints of trade have an inherent quality of urgency. The position comes from the following dictum in Mozart Ice Cream Classic Franchise (Pty) Ltd v Davidoff and another where the court held: ‘I accept that breaches of restraint of trade have an inherent quality of urgency.’”
[7] The Court in Vumatel however added the following[3]:
“… An urgent restraint of trade application is still nothing else but an urgent application, just like any other urgent application where final relief is sought. The ordinary requirements applicable to such urgent applications must still find application. The fact that one is dealing with a restraint of trade is not some kind of license that in itself establishes urgency, to the exclusion of all other considerations.”
[8]. In summary, the requirements for an urgent application in general are:
(a) the applicant has to set out explicitly the circumstances which renders the matter urgent with full and proper particularity;
(b) reasons must be stated why he/she (believes that he/she substantial redress at the hearing in due course;
(c) where final relief is sought the court must even be more circumspect to determine whether urgency has been established;
(d) the urgency must not be self-created; [my emphasis is should never be a subjectively perceived urgency].
(e) respondent’s prejudice as a result of abridgement of prescribed time limits and an early hearing is relevant; and
(f) more immediate reaction by an applicant by instituting litigation points favourably to urgency[4].
[9] No litigation was pursued by the applicants on discovering that the respondent has been breaching his fiduciary duties while still at the employment of the Applicant. Worst off, this matter was enrolled on the 3rd December 2024. Same postponed to the 4th February 2025 without the applicants seeking an urgent or interim relief from the court. Clearly, the fact that the applicant failed to apply for the interim relief on the 3rd December 2024 having allowed this matter to the postpone to this urgent court, takes away urgency of this matter.
[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 respondent’s costs for the urgent application including the costs of two counsel wherein employed on scale C.
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 6 February 2025.
Appearances:
Advocate for Applicant: Frans Rautenbach Instructed by: VFV Attorneys Advocate for Respondent(s): Reinard Michau SC Appearing with: Gideon van der Westhuizen Instructed by: Annelie Grundlingh Attorneys Heard: 6 February 2025 Delivered: 6 February 2025
[1] (11/33767) [2011] ZAGPJHC 196 at par 6.
[2] [2018] 39 ILJ 2771 (LC) at para 4.
[3] At para 5; see also Ecolab (Pty) Ltd v Thoabala and another [2017] 38 ILJ 2741 (LC) at para 20.
[3] At para 5; see also Ecolab (Pty) Ltd v Thoabala and another [2017] 38 ILJ 2741 (LC) at
para 20.
[4] Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union and others v Northam Platinum and another [2016] 37 ILJ 2840 (LC) at paras 20-26, and the authorities cited in it; Select PPE (Pty) Ltd v Ryan Holmes and Universal Safety Products (Pty) Ltd, unreported judgment, Labour Court, Case No 115703-2024.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.