Lebelo v First National Bank (Ex tempore) (143809/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 527 (20 May 2025)
The applicant failed to set out any facts in her papers establishing the urgency of her application. The urgent court is reserved for matters where immediate judicial intervention is necessary to preserve rights or prevent harm. As Ms Lebelo did not provide reasons why her case should be heard urgently, the court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] ZAGPPHC 527
- Parties
- Applicant: Lenah Motlahabo Lebelo; Respondent: First National Bank
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 143809/2024
- Procedural Posture
- Urgent Application / Ex Tempore Judgment on Urgent Application
- Outcome
- Application removed from the roll; no costs order made.
- Judges
- Wilson
- Legal Topics
- Urgent Application Requirements, Estate Distribution, Lay Litigant Procedure
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Lenah Motlahabo Lebelo
Applicant
First National Bank
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Ex Tempore Judgment on Urgent Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has established urgency justifying the hearing of her application in the urgent court.
- 2 Whether the application should be removed from the roll or struck from the roll due to lack of urgency.
- 3 Whether a costs order should be made against the applicant, a lay litigant.
Ratio Decidendi
The applicant failed to set out any facts in her papers establishing the urgency of her application. The urgent court is reserved for matters where immediate judicial intervention is necessary to preserve rights or prevent harm. As Ms Lebelo did not provide reasons why her case should be heard urgently, the court cannot determine whether the matter is urgent. Given that the applicant is a lay litigant and may not be familiar with the rules, the court opts for leniency and removes the matter from the roll, allowing her the opportunity to set out facts establishing urgency in a future application. No costs order is made, as there was no abuse of process.
Court Disposition
Application removed from the roll; no costs order made.
Orders
- The application is removed from the roll.
- Each party will pay their own costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO: 143809/2024
DATE: 20-05-2025
(1) REPORTABLE: NO.
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO.
(3) REVISED.
DATE
SIGNATURE
In the matter between
LENAH MOTLAHABO LEBELO
Applicant
and
FIRST NATIONAL BANK
Respondent
JUDGMENT EX TEMPORE
WILSON J: The applicant, Ms Lebelo, approaches me in urgent court for relief which is substantially identical to that sought in an application that Ms Lebelo has brought in the ordinary course.
The relief concerns the distribution of Ms Lebelo's late father's estate. In the main application, brought in the ordinary course, Ms Lebelo seeks that she and the estate of her deceased sibling each be given a child's portion of her late father's estate. It is Ms Lebelo's case in that application that the respondent, FNB, acting in its capacity as her late father’s executor, unlawfully devolved the estate, in its entirety, upon Mr. Lebelo’s deceased father's wife.
I can understand, at the very abstract level, the frustration that litigants, especially those who, like Ms. Lebelo, cannot afford legal representation, feel with the pace with which the law moves. But the urgent court is reserved for truly urgent matters. An urgent matter is a matter in which an applicant requires that the court intervene in order to preserve their rights pending the resolution of a dispute in the ordinary course, or in which the court makes a final order necessary to avoid some calamity that will ensue if the applicant is required to seek relief in the ordinary course.
Unfortunately, Ms Lebelo has not set out in her papers the exigencies of her situation and the reasons why the urgent court is required to intervene in her case today, essentially by granting the same relief which she seeks in an application that has been brought in the ordinary course.
It follows that I have no idea one way or the other whether this application might be urgent. The facts have not been set out.
The question before me is what relief I should grant, given that reality. One option would be to strike the application from the roll. The effect of this would be that the application may not be enrolled again in urgent court without the leave of the Judge then presiding and without Ms Lebelo having explained why, notwithstanding the striking order, she should be allowed to approach the urgent court again.
The other option is simply to remove the matter from the roll, which would leave the way open for Ms Lebelo to set out in some detail, if she can, the reasons why her application should be given preference, and to approach the urgent court simply be setting the matter down again.
Given that Ms Lebelo is a lay litigant and may not have been familiar with the rules applicable to enrolling an application in urgent court, I am inclined to make an order of the second type. This means that I shall remove the matter from the roll, but Ms Lebelo, if she can, will be entitled to file an affidavit setting out contentions which may convince a Judge in a future urgent court to consider the matter urgently.
Ms Lebelo must of course be cautioned that if she brings the matter back before an urgent court without setting those facts out, or if she set out facts that do not convince another judge of the urgency she claims, then she is at risk of an order striking her application from the roll and very possibly also at risk of a costs order, which will compound the financial difficulties she has told me she has. Nonetheless, today, I prefer to show lenience.
Ms Webster, who appeared for FNB, asks for costs. This is axiomatically not a case in which a costs order should be made. I would be slow to make a costs order against a lay litigant unless a genuine and conscious abuse of process had been committed. There was no such abuse in this case.
I make the following order.
1. The application is removed from the roll.
2. Each party will pay their own costs.
WILSON J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
20 MAY 2025