DLC 56 Group (Pty) Ltd and Another v Mohlawe Technology (Pty) Ltd and Others (Ex tempore) (005443/2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 260 (26 February 2025)

DLC 56 Group (Pty) Ltd and Another v Mohlawe Technology (Pty) Ltd and Others (Ex tempore) (005443/2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 260 (26 February 2025)

The court found that the applicants failed to establish genuine urgency as required by Uniform Rule 6(12). The urgency was deemed self-created and not supported by evidence of imminent harm or inability to obtain substantial redress at a later hearing. The photograph relied upon by the applicants was unclear and did not identify any respondent, and the sheriff's return did not confirm personal service or knowledge of the order. The applicants did not allege or prove any imminent or irreparable harm. Consequently, the application did not qualify for urgent relief and was struck from the roll for lack of urgency. Costs were awarded against the applicants on an attorney and own client scale,...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 260
Parties
Applicant: DLC 56 Group (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Calvin Mutize; Respondent: Mohlawe Technology (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Malose Mgoai; Respondent: Patrick Phillimon Masha; Respondent: Johannesmagkiba Maluleka; Respondent: Minister of Police; Respondent: Koketso Charles Maphothoma
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 February 2025
Case Number
005443/2025
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Strike From the Roll for Lack of Urgency
Outcome
Application struck from the roll for lack of urgency. Costs awarded against the applicants on attorney and own client scale, jointly and severally.
Judges
Yende
Legal Topics
Urgent Application, Uniform Rule 6 12, Contempt of Court, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Urgent Application Uniform Rule 6 12 Contempt of Court 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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DLC 56 Group (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Calvin Mutize

Applicant

Mohlawe Technology (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Malose Mgoai

Respondent

Patrick Phillimon Masha

Respondent

Johannesmagkiba Maluleka

Respondent

Minister of Police

Respondent

Koketso Charles Maphothoma

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application qualifies to be heard as urgent under Uniform Rule 6(12).
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have demonstrated sufficient urgency and imminent harm to justify urgent relief.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents are in contempt of a court order as alleged by the applicants.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to establish genuine urgency as required by Uniform Rule 6(12). The urgency was deemed self-created and not supported by evidence of imminent harm or inability to obtain substantial redress at a later hearing. The photograph relied upon by the applicants was unclear and did not identify any respondent, and the sheriff's return did not confirm personal service or knowledge of the order. The applicants did not allege or prove any imminent or irreparable harm. Consequently, the application did not qualify for urgent relief and was struck from the roll for lack of urgency. Costs were awarded against the applicants on an attorney and own client scale,...

Court Disposition

Application struck from the roll for lack of urgency. Costs awarded against the applicants on attorney and own client scale, jointly and severally.

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 on attorney and own client scale, jointly and severally.