Hiramun v Sefako Makgatho Health Sciences University (045588/2023) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1173 (5 September 2023)

Hiramun v Sefako Makgatho Health Sciences University (045588/2023) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1173 (5 September 2023)

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate genuine urgency. The letter relied upon by the applicant did not guarantee the internship would commence on 1 July 2023, but rather indicated that allocation would proceed once the applicant substantiated his qualification status. The Department of Health had already extended the internship commencement date, showing flexibility. Furthermore, the university's internal processes, including examination committee and Senate review, were ongoing and could not be expedited by court order. The matter was therefore not urgent and could be heard in the ordinary course. The application was removed from the roll for lack of urgency, with no...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 1173
Parties
Applicant: Nasheel Hiramun; Respondent: Sefako Makgatho Health Sciences University
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 September 2023
Case Number
045588/2023
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Relief Under Rule 6(12); Removal From Roll for Lack of Urgency
Outcome
Application removed from the roll for lack of urgency; no order as to costs.
Judges
Munzhelele
Legal Topics
Urgency in Motion Proceedings, Rule 6 12, University Examination Review, Internship Allocation
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Urgency in Motion Proceedings Rule 6 12 University Examination Review Internship Allocation

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nasheel Hiramun

Applicant

Sefako Makgatho Health Sciences University

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Relief Under Rule 6(12); Removal From Roll for Lack of Urgency

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant demonstrated sufficient urgency to justify hearing the matter on an urgent basis.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's internship opportunity constitutes a ground for urgency.
  3. 3 Whether the relief sought can be granted pending the outcome of internal university processes.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate genuine urgency. The letter relied upon by the applicant did not guarantee the internship would commence on 1 July 2023, but rather indicated that allocation would proceed once the applicant substantiated his qualification status. The Department of Health had already extended the internship commencement date, showing flexibility. Furthermore, the university's internal processes, including examination committee and Senate review, were ongoing and could not be expedited by court order. The matter was therefore not urgent and could be heard in the ordinary course. The application was removed from the roll for lack of urgency, with no...

Court Disposition

Application removed from the roll for lack of urgency; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application is removed from the roll due to lack of urgency.
  • There is no order as to costs.