GP Smith Letting CC v Jacobs and Van Aswegen Property Developers CC and Another (15863/2015) [2015] ZAGPPHC 192 (10 April 2015)

GP Smith Letting CC v Jacobs and Van Aswegen Property Developers CC and Another (15863/2015) [2015] ZAGPPHC 192 (10 April 2015)

The court found that the applicant delayed impermissibly in launching the urgent application, waiting from 10 February 2015 (when the arbitrator refused to suspend proceedings) until 3 March 2015 to file the application. This delay rendered any urgency self-created. The applicant failed to meet the requirements for urgency as set out in Uniform Rule 6(12)(b) and relevant case law. Consequently, the application was not properly before the court as an urgent matter and was struck from the roll with costs.

Citation
[2015] ZAGPPHC 192
Parties
Applicant: GP Smith Letting CC; Respondent: Jacobs and Van Aswegen Property Developers CC; Respondent: Gerhard Maré
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 April 2015
Case Number
15863/2015
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Interdict Application to Suspend Arbitration Pending Review
Outcome
Application struck from the roll with costs due to lack of urgency.
Judges
E M Makgoba
Legal Topics
Interim Interdict, Arbitration Suspension, Urgency, Review Application
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Interim Interdict Arbitration Suspension Urgency Review Application

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

GP Smith Letting CC

Applicant

Jacobs and Van Aswegen Property Developers CC

Respondent

Gerhard Maré

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interim Interdict Application to Suspend Arbitration Pending Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has established urgency justifying the hearing of the application.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to an interim interdict suspending arbitration proceedings pending the outcome of a review application.
  3. 3 Whether the review application has a bearing on the arbitration proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant delayed impermissibly in launching the urgent application, waiting from 10 February 2015 (when the arbitrator refused to suspend proceedings) until 3 March 2015 to file the application. This delay rendered any urgency self-created. The applicant failed to meet the requirements for urgency as set out in Uniform Rule 6(12)(b) and relevant case law. Consequently, the application was not properly before the court as an urgent matter and was struck from the roll with costs.

Court Disposition

Application struck from the roll with costs due to lack of urgency.

Orders

  • The application is struck from the roll with costs.