K.A.M and Another v S.S.M (1060/25) [2025] ZANWHC 51 (12 March 2025)

K.A.M and Another v S.S.M (1060/25) [2025] ZANWHC 51 (12 March 2025)

The court found that the applicants failed to establish urgency as required by Uniform Rule 6(12)(b). The delay of seven days in bringing the application was unexplained and amounted to self-created urgency. The applicants did not demonstrate that they would suffer undue hardship if the matter was not heard urgently, as they have access to other vehicles and substantial income. The dispute regarding the Toyota motor vehicle will be determined in the magistrates court on the scheduled return date, where the applicants will have substantial redress. Consequently, the application was not suitable for the urgent roll and was struck off for lack of urgency.

Citation
[2025] ZANWHC 51
Parties
Applicant: M[...] K[...] A[...]; Applicant: KEAMOSETHO (PTY) LTD; Respondent: M[...] S[...] S[...]
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 March 2025
Case Number
1060/25
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Strike Interim Protection Order From Roll for Lack of Urgency
Outcome
Application struck off the roll for lack of urgency, with costs to be taxed on scale A.
Judges
Titus
Legal Topics
Domestic Violence Act, Interim Protection Order, Urgency, Community of Property, Striking Off Roll
Civil Procedure Family and Children Domestic Violence Act Interim Protection Order Urgency Community of Property 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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M[...] K[...] A[...]

Applicant

KEAMOSETHO (PTY) LTD

Applicant

M[...] S[...] S[...]

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Strike Interim Protection Order From Roll for Lack of Urgency

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application to suspend the interim protection order is urgent and should be heard on the urgent roll.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants will suffer undue hardship if the matter is not heard urgently.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants have established a prima facie right to the Toyota motor vehicle pending the return date in the magistrates court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to establish urgency as required by Uniform Rule 6(12)(b). The delay of seven days in bringing the application was unexplained and amounted to self-created urgency. The applicants did not demonstrate that they would suffer undue hardship if the matter was not heard urgently, as they have access to other vehicles and substantial income. The dispute regarding the Toyota motor vehicle will be determined in the magistrates court on the scheduled return date, where the applicants will have substantial redress. Consequently, the application was not suitable for the urgent roll and was struck off for lack of urgency.

Court Disposition

Application struck off the roll for lack of urgency, with costs to be taxed on scale A.

Orders

  • The application is struck off the roll for lack of urgency.
  • Costs are awarded against the applicants on scale A.