Currie Group (Pty) Ltd v Ngoma and Others (2023-109091) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1259 (31 October 2023)
- Citation
- [2023] ZAGPJHC 1259
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Panel
- GC Wright
- Case number
- 2023-109091
More details
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Panel
- GC Wright
- Case number
- 2023-109091
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
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.
02
Material facts
Parties
Currie Group (Pty) Ltd
Applicant Counsel: Adv A BerkowitzElias Ngoma
Respondent Counsel: Adv Shuma NkunaPatience Lethabo Mlengana
RespondentMakwembere, Simbarashe
RespondentNorton Rose Fulbright Attorneys
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Strike Matter From the Roll for Lack of Urgency
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the application is urgent and should be heard on an urgent basis.
- 02
Whether the applicant is entitled to a declarator and payment of commission on the sale of property.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant contends that the matter is urgent because if the commission is paid to the first respondent, it may be difficult to recover the funds, potentially leading to further litigation. The applicant seeks a declarator confirming its entitlement to the commission and an order for payment.
- Respondent
- The respondents dispute the urgency of the matter and contest the applicant's entitlement to the commission. They argue that the application lacks sufficient grounds for urgency and that the dispute over commission does not warrant urgent intervention by the court.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Rule 6(12) Uniform Rules of Court
Urgency in application proceedings requires clear and substantiated grounds; vague assertions of potential difficulty in recovery do not suffice.
- 02
Luna Meubel Vervaardigers (Edms) Bpk v Makin and Another (1977 (4) SA 135 (W))
A matter will not be heard as urgent unless the applicant demonstrates real and imminent prejudice that cannot be addressed in the ordinary course.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
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.
Obiter and limits
- Applicants must provide specific and compelling reasons for urgency; speculative concerns about future litigation are insufficient.
- The court will not entertain urgent applications where the alleged urgency is not supported by concrete facts.
Court disposition
Application struck off the roll with costs.
- The application is struck off the roll for lack of urgency.
- The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the application.
Source and reliance status
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
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.
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Judgment
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION,
JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO: 2023-109091
NOT REPORTABLE
NOT OF INTEREST TO
OTHER JUDGES
REVISED
In the matter between:
CURRIE GROUP (PTY) LTD
APPLICANT and
ELIAS
NGOMA 1st
RESPONDENT
PATIENCE
LETHABO MLENGANA 2ND
RESPONDENT MAKWEMBERE,
SIMBARASHE 3RD
RESPONDENT
NORTON
ROSE FULBRIGHT ATTORNEYS 4TH
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
WRIGHT J
The applicant company sells immovable property. The first respondent used to work for the applicant, selling property.
The applicant fired the first respondent and accuses him of fraud. There is a dispute as to who is entitled to the commission on the sale of property.
The applicant seeks urgently a declarator that the applicant is entitled to the commission and it seeks effectively an order that the commission be paid.
The applicant says, vaguely, that the matter is urgent because the prospects of collecting the commission, from the first respondent,
if he gets the commission, are doubtful and would involve further litigation.
In my view, the application is not urgent.
ORDER
Struck off with costs.
GC Wright
Judge of the High Court
Gauteng Division, Johannesburg
HEARD : 31 October 2023
DELIVERED : 31 October 2023
APPEARANCES :
APPLICANTS Adv A Berkowitz
berkowitz@counsel.co.za
082 820 1119
Instructed by
1ST RESPONDENT Adv Shuma Nkuna
shankunarri@gmail.com
079 477 7095
Instructed by MI Khumalo Attorneys
khumalom3@gmail.com
064 658 5299
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.