Currie Group (Pty) Ltd v Ngoma and Others (2023-109091) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1259 (31 October 2023)

Currie Group (Pty) Ltd v Ngoma and Others (2023-109091) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1259 (31 October 2023)

The court found that the applicant failed to establish sufficient grounds for urgency. The assertion that recovery of commission from the first respondent would be difficult and might involve further litigation was considered vague and unsubstantiated. The court held that the matter could be dealt with in the ordinary course and did not warrant urgent relief. Consequently, the application was struck off the roll with costs.

Citation
[2023] ZAGPJHC 1259
Parties
Applicant: Currie Group (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Elias Ngoma; Respondent: Patience Lethabo Mlengana; Respondent: Makwembere, Simbarashe; Respondent: Norton Rose Fulbright Attorneys
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 October 2023
Case Number
2023-109091
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Strike Matter From the Roll for Lack of Urgency
Outcome
Application struck off the roll with costs.
Judges
GC Wright
Legal Topics
Urgency, Commission Dispute, Striking Off Roll
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Urgency Commission Dispute Striking Off Roll

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Currie Group (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Elias Ngoma

Respondent

Patience Lethabo Mlengana

Respondent

Makwembere, Simbarashe

Respondent

Norton Rose Fulbright Attorneys

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Strike Matter From the Roll for Lack of Urgency

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application is urgent and should be heard on an urgent basis.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to a declarator and payment of commission on the sale of property.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to establish sufficient grounds for urgency. The assertion that recovery of commission from the first respondent would be difficult and might involve further litigation was considered vague and unsubstantiated. The court held that the matter could be dealt with in the ordinary course and did not warrant urgent relief. Consequently, the application was struck off the roll with costs.

Court Disposition

Application struck off the roll with costs.

Orders

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