Eskom SOC Ltd v Sisusomhambi Electrical Construction CC and Another (42822/20201) [2021] ZAGPPHC 591 (14 September 2021)

Eskom SOC Ltd v Sisusomhambi Electrical Construction CC and Another (42822/20201) [2021] ZAGPPHC 591 (14 September 2021)

The court found that the Applicant failed to satisfy the requirements of urgency as set out in rule 6(12) of the Uniform Rules of Court and the Luna Meubel case. The Applicant did not set out sufficient grounds for urgency in its founding affidavit and attempted to supplement its case in the replying affidavit, which is impermissible. The court held that pleadings must define the issues for the parties and the court, and that the Applicant failed to demonstrate why the matter could not be addressed in the ordinary course. Consequently, the application was struck off the roll for lack of urgency.

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 591
Parties
Applicant: Eskom Holdings SOC Limited; Respondent: Sisusomhambi Electrical Construction CC; Respondent: Daniel Mnisi
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 September 2021
Case Number
42822/20201
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Strike Off the Roll for Lack of Urgency
Outcome
Application struck off the roll for lack of urgency; costs awarded against the Applicant.
Judges
Baloyi-Mere
Legal Topics
Urgency in Motion Proceedings, Servitude Access Dispute, Rule 6 12 Uniform Rules, Striking Off Roll
Civil Procedure Land and Property Urgency in Motion Proceedings Servitude Access Dispute Rule 6 12 Uniform Rules 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eskom Holdings SOC Limited

Applicant

Sisusomhambi Electrical Construction CC

Respondent

Daniel Mnisi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application brought by the Applicant is urgent and should be heard as such.
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant has satisfied the requirements for urgency under rule 6(12) of the Uniform Rules of Court.
  3. 3 Whether the Applicant is entitled to access the property based on the registered servitude.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Applicant failed to satisfy the requirements of urgency as set out in rule 6(12) of the Uniform Rules of Court and the Luna Meubel case. The Applicant did not set out sufficient grounds for urgency in its founding affidavit and attempted to supplement its case in the replying affidavit, which is impermissible. The court held that pleadings must define the issues for the parties and the court, and that the Applicant failed to demonstrate why the matter could not be addressed in the ordinary course. Consequently, the application was struck off the roll for lack of urgency.

Court Disposition

Application struck off the roll for lack of urgency; costs awarded against the Applicant.

Orders

  • The Applicant’s application is struck off the roll for lack of urgency.
  • The Applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the application on a party and party scale.