Hoffman v Freedom Front Plus and Another (120034/2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1061 (31 October 2024)
- Citation
- [2024] ZAGPPHC 1061
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- E van der Schyff
- Case number
- 120034/2024
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- E van der Schyff
- Case number
- 120034/2024
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the applicant failed to establish urgency, as he did not demonstrate that he would suffer irreparable harm if the disciplinary hearing proceeded as scheduled. The applicant was unable to show that his preferred counsel was the only person capable of representing him, nor that he would be denied a fair hearing. The application was deemed premature, and the applicant could seek a postponement at the disciplinary hearing if necessary. There was no basis to deviate from the principle that costs follow success, as the first respondent was required to defend the matter on an urgent basis without justification.
Court disposition
Application struck from the roll with costs on scale A.
Orders
- The application is struck from the roll with costs on scale A.
02
Material facts
Parties
Kobus Hoffman
Applicant Counsel: Adv. M. BoonzaaierFreedom Front Plus
Respondent Counsel: Adv. E. van AsGert van Niekerk N.O.
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interdict Pending Disciplinary Hearing
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicant is entitled to an urgent interdict preventing the disciplinary hearing from proceeding on 5 November 2024.
- 02
Whether the applicant has established sufficient urgency to justify the relief sought.
- 03
Whether the applicant will suffer irreparable harm if the disciplinary hearing proceeds as scheduled.
- 04
Whether the costs should be awarded against the applicant.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant argued that the disciplinary hearing was set down unilaterally by the first respondent for 5 November 2024, despite prior notification that his preferred counsel was unavailable. He contended that the composition of the disciplinary committee was biased and requested that an independent chair and committee be appointed by the Arbitration Foundation of Southern Africa. The applicant claimed he lacked financial means to pay costs and sought an order that each party bear its own costs.
- Respondent
- The first respondent maintained that it acted in accordance with its Constitution and followed proper procedure in scheduling the disciplinary hearing. It argued that the applicant was given an opportunity to propose alternative dates, but the dates suggested were unreasonable. The respondent asserted that the applicant could request a postponement at the hearing and that there was no evidence that only his preferred counsel could represent him. The respondent opposed the costs order sought by the applicant, arguing that costs should follow the result.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Rule 6(12) of the Uniform Rules of Court
Urgency must be established on the papers for the court to entertain an urgent application.
- 02
Ferreira v Levin NO and Others 1996 (2) SA 621 (CC)
Costs generally follow the result unless exceptional circumstances justify a departure.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to establish urgency, as he did not demonstrate that he would suffer irreparable harm if the disciplinary hearing proceeded as scheduled. The applicant was unable to show that his preferred counsel was the only person capable of representing him, nor that he would be denied a fair hearing. The application was deemed premature, and the applicant could seek a postponement at the disciplinary hearing if necessary. There was no basis to deviate from the principle that costs follow success, as the first respondent was required to defend the matter on an urgent basis without justification.
Obiter and limits
- The applicant's anticipation of bias by the disciplinary committee was speculative and unsupported by evidence.
- The court noted that the applicant's financial circumstances do not justify a departure from the usual costs order.
Court disposition
Application struck from the roll with costs on scale A.
- The application is struck from the roll with costs on scale A.
Source and reliance status
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Judgment
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH
AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA
CASE NO.: 120034/2024
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED: NO
Date: 31 October 2024
E van der Schyff
In the matter between:
KOBUS
HOFFMAN
Applicant
And
FREEDOM
FRONT PLUS
First Respondent
GERT VAN NIEKERK N.O.
Second Respondent
JUDGMENT
Van der Schyff J
Introduction
[1] The applicant, Mr. Hoffman, approached the urgent court seeking an order to the effect that the respondents are interdicted from proceedings with a disciplinary hearing set down for 5 November 2024, pending the finalisation of relief sought under Part B of the application.
[2] In Part B, Mr. Hoffman seeks an order that the first respondent must remove second respondent and the disciplinary committee members from the disciplinary hearing of the applicant, and that the Arbitration Foundation of Southern Africa be ordered to appoint an independent chair and committee to attend to a fair and just disciplinary hearing.
[3] The applicant avers that the first respondent unilaterally set down the disciplinary hearing for 5 November 2024, despite being informed that the applicant’s counsel is not available on the date.
[4] The facts, however, indicate that the applicant was suspended from all party obligations on 5 July 2024. The disciplinary hearing was set down for 4 October 2024. When the applicant informed the first respondent that his preferred counsel is not available on the date, the first respondent requested that dates be sent through which would suit the applicant’s counsel. The dates provided was for 2025, and were not acceptable for the first respondent. On 8 October 2024, the first respondent set the matter down for 4 November 2024, and the applicant was duly notified.
[5] The first respondent acted in accordance with the procedure set out in its Constitution. The applicant does not make out a case that it would not be possible for him to seek a postponement at the hearing. He also did not, on the papers before me, make out a case that his preferred counsel is the only counsel or legal representative who would be able to represent him at the disciplinary hearing. He anticipates that the presiding committee would disregard his interests and not adjudicate the matter objectively and fair.
[6] The application is, in my view, premature, and as such it does not cross the hurdle of urgency.
[7] Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant does not have the financial means to pay the costs of the application and, if he is not successful, that an order be made so that each party pays its own costs.
[8] Such an approach would, however, not be just and fair towards the first respondent, who was dragged to court on an urgent basis. There is no reason to deviate from the principle that costs follow success.
ORDER
In the result, the following order is granted:
1. The application is struck from the roll with costs on scale A.
Judge of the High Court
Delivered: This judgment is handed down electronically by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on CaseLines. As a courtesy gesture, it will be emailed to the parties/their legal representatives.
For the applicant:
Adv. M. Boonzaaier
Instructed by:
Willie Jordaan Attorneys
For the first respondent:
Adv. E. van As
Instructed by:
Johan Victor Attorneys
Date of the hearing:
30 October 2024
Date of judgment:
31 October 2024
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.