Kloof Investment 2004 CC v Garry Isaacs t/a Build-O-Rama Builders Merchants (23305/2010) [2010] ZAWCHC 552 (12 November 2010)

Kloof Investment 2004 CC v Garry Isaacs t/a Build-O-Rama Builders Merchants (23305/2010) [2010] ZAWCHC 552 (12 November 2010)

The court found that the respondent's request for reasons was out of time, as the ten-day period prescribed by Rule 49(1)(c) had expired. Furthermore, the finding of urgency is a discretionary procedural decision, not a final determination on the merits, and is not appealable. The court's inherent jurisdiction under...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] ZAWCHC 552
Parties
Applicant: Kloof Investment 2004 CC; Respondent: Garry Isaacs t/a Build-O-Rama Builders Merchants
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 November 2010
Case Number
23305/2010
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Request for Reasons for Order on Urgency
Outcome
The court declined to furnish reasons for the order made on 28 October 2010 regarding urgency.
Judges
J I CLOETE
Legal Topics
Urgency, Rule 49, Inherent Jurisdiction, Appealability of Procedural Orders, Section 173 Constitution
Civil Procedure Urgency Rule 49 Inherent Jurisdiction Appealability of Procedural Orders Section 173 Constitution

Source-derived case record

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kloof Investment 2004 CC

Applicant

Garry Isaacs t/a Build-O-Rama Builders Merchants

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Request for Reasons for Order on Urgency

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's request for reasons for the order on urgency was timeous.
  2. 2 Whether the finding of urgency is appealable.
  3. 3 Whether reasons for the order on urgency are required to be furnished.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's request for reasons was out of time, as the ten-day period prescribed by Rule 49(1)(c) had expired. Furthermore, the finding of urgency is a discretionary procedural decision, not a final determination on the merits, and is not appealable. The court's inherent jurisdiction under section 173 of the Constitution allows it to regulate its own process, and the only qualification is the interests of justice. Therefore, there is no necessity to furnish reasons for the order made regarding urgency.

Court Disposition

The court declined to furnish reasons for the order made on 28 October 2010 regarding urgency.

Orders

  • It is not necessary for the court to deliver reasons for the order made on 28 October 2010.