Empact Group (Pty) Ltd v Magoro (7541/2022) [2022] ZAGPJHC 240 (22 March 2022)

Empact Group (Pty) Ltd v Magoro (7541/2022) [2022] ZAGPJHC 240 (22 March 2022)

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate genuine urgency, as it waited approximately seven to eight weeks after discovering the breach before setting the matter down for hearing. The applicant did not show that irreparable harm would occur if the matter was not heard urgently, and any harm alleged had already transpired. The court held that the application should be heard in the ordinary course and not in the urgent court, in line with the directive of the Deputy Judge President. Accordingly, the application was struck off the roll for want of urgency, and the applicant was ordered to pay the wasted costs.

Citation
[2022] ZAGPJHC 240
Parties
Applicant: Empact Group (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Mutshiyani Thlangesi Magoro
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 March 2022
Case Number
7541/2022
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Struck Off for Want of Urgency
Outcome
Application struck off the roll for want of urgency; applicant to pay wasted costs.
Judges
Crutchfield
Legal Topics
Urgency, Striking Off Roll, Wasted Costs
Civil Procedure Urgency Striking Off Roll Wasted Costs

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Empact Group (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Mutshiyani Thlangesi Magoro

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Struck Off for Want of Urgency

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application is urgent and should be heard in the urgent court.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant will suffer irreparable harm if the matter is not heard urgently.
  3. 3 Whether the application should be struck off the roll for want of urgency.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate genuine urgency, as it waited approximately seven to eight weeks after discovering the breach before setting the matter down for hearing. The applicant did not show that irreparable harm would occur if the matter was not heard urgently, and any harm alleged had already transpired. The court held that the application should be heard in the ordinary course and not in the urgent court, in line with the directive of the Deputy Judge President. Accordingly, the application was struck off the roll for want of urgency, and the applicant was ordered to pay the wasted costs.

Court Disposition

Application struck off the roll for want of urgency; applicant to pay wasted costs.

Orders

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