Laser Transport Group (Pty) Ltd and Another v Minister of International Relations and Cooperation and Others (93389/2015) [2015] ZAGPPHC 826 (9 December 2015)

Laser Transport Group (Pty) Ltd and Another v Minister of International Relations and Cooperation and Others (93389/2015) [2015] ZAGPPHC 826 (9 December 2015)

The court found that the applicants failed to establish sufficient urgency to warrant the matter being heard outside the ordinary court process. The applicants did not demonstrate any real or imminent prejudice that justified the invocation of the urgent court procedure. Consequently, the matter was struck off the roll for lack of urgency. The court further held that the applicants should bear the costs of all respondents, including the costs of two counsel for the second and third respondents, as the application was improperly brought on an urgent basis.

Citation
[2015] ZAGPPHC 826
Parties
Applicant: Laser Transport Group (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: GIN Holdings (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Minister, Department: International Relations and Cooperation; Respondent: Elliott Mobility (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Neo Thando/Elliott Mobility (Pty) Ltd Limited Joint Venture
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 December 2015
Case Number
93389/2015
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Order on Urgency
Outcome
Application struck off the roll for lack of urgency; costs awarded against applicants.
Judges
C Pretorius
Legal Topics
Urgency, Costs Order, Striking Off Roll
Civil Procedure Urgency Costs Order 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Laser Transport Group (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

GIN Holdings (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Minister, Department: International Relations and Cooperation

Respondent

Elliott Mobility (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Neo Thando/Elliott Mobility (Pty) Ltd Limited Joint Venture

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Order on Urgency

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application was urgent and should be heard as such.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants should bear the costs of the respondents.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to establish sufficient urgency to warrant the matter being heard outside the ordinary court process. The applicants did not demonstrate any real or imminent prejudice that justified the invocation of the urgent court procedure. Consequently, the matter was struck off the roll for lack of urgency. The court further held that the applicants should bear the costs of all respondents, including the costs of two counsel for the second and third respondents, as the application was improperly brought on an urgent basis.

Court Disposition

Application struck off the roll for lack of urgency; costs awarded against applicants.

Orders

  • The matter is struck off the roll due to a lack of urgency.
  • The applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the first respondent.