Limpopo Chamber of Commerce and Industry and Others v Transport Education Training Authority (TETA) (2024/098008) [2024] ZAGPJHC 912 (10 September 2024)
The court found that the applicants failed to establish urgency, as their assertions were vague and unsupported by concrete evidence. The applicants had been aware of the dispute since April 2024, undermining their claim for urgent relief. The conduct of the applicants, including the late appearance of counsel and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] ZAGPJHC 912
- Parties
- Applicant: Limpopo Chamber of Commerce & Industry (LCCI); Applicant: Albert Jeleni; Applicant: All Host Employer Companies; Respondent: Transport Education Training Authority (TETA)
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 2024/098008
- Procedural Posture
- Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Relief
- Outcome
- Application removed from the roll; costs awarded against first and second applicants on attorney and client scale.
- Judges
- GC Wright
- Legal Topics
- Urgency, Costs Order, Removal From Roll
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Limpopo Chamber of Commerce & Industry (LCCI)
Applicant
Albert Jeleni
Applicant
All Host Employer Companies
Applicant
Transport Education Training Authority (TETA)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Relief
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application is urgent and should be heard as such.
- 2 Whether the applicants have justified the need for urgent relief.
- 3 Whether the matter should be removed from the roll.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants failed to establish urgency, as their assertions were vague and unsupported by concrete evidence. The applicants had been aware of the dispute since April 2024, undermining their claim for urgent relief. The conduct of the applicants, including the late appearance of counsel and the request for removal, was unacceptable. The respondent's opposition was reasonable, given the inconvenience and prejudice caused. Consequently, the matter was removed from the roll, and the first and second applicants were ordered to pay the respondent's costs on an attorney and client scale.
Court Disposition
Application removed from the roll; costs awarded against first and second applicants on attorney and client scale.
Orders
- The matter is removed from the roll.
- The first and second applicants are jointly and severally to pay the costs of the respondent on the attorney and client scale.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO: 2024/098008
1. Reportable:
2. Of interest to other judges:
3. Revised:
10 September 2024
In the matter between:
LIMPOPO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY (LCCI) 1st Applicant ALBERT JELENI 2nd Applicant ALL HOST EMPLOYER COMPANIES 3rd Applicant and TRANSPORT EDUCATION TRAINING AUTHORITY (TETA) Respondent
JUDGMENT
WRIGHT J
1. The applicant relies on funding from the respondent Transport Education Training Authority for skills development.
2. The applicant seeks urgently an order for payment of money from the respondent.
3. The applicants says, somewhat vaguely, that its interns, those persons who benefit from the relevant skills development program will be prejudiced if the money is not paid over urgently.
4. The lengthy and detailed answering affidavit raises huge disputes of fact. Allegations of irregular financial conduct are made against the applicant. It is also shown that the applicant was aware from April 2024 of the present looming dispute.
5. In these circumstances, urgency is not shown.
6. When the matter was called, Mr SF Selamulela appeared for the applicant, saying that he had just been asked to attend court. The problem, he said, was that counsel for the applicant would arrive from Venda by Thursday.
7. This explanation is unacceptable.
8. After the matter had stood down for about two hours, Mr Selamulela asked for the matter to be removed.
9. Ms P Sokhela opposed, quite reasonably suggesting inconvenience and prejudice.
10. Be that as it may, the matter is not urgent and would need to be removed anyway.
ORDER
1. Removed
2. The first and second applicants are jointly and severally to pay the costs of the respondent on the attorney and client scale. -
GC Wright
Judge of the High Court
Gauteng Division, Johannesburg
HEARD DELIVERED :10 September 2024 :10 September 2024 APPEARANCES: Applicant Instructed by Adv Selamulela Nevelamvi Attorneys Inc rofhela@gmail.com ; jagpage06@gmail.com 079 657 0238 / 072 222 0188 Respondent Instructed by Adv P Sokhela sokhela@group621.co.za 068 587 1653 Cheadle Thompson & Haysom Inc Brendan@cth.co.za ;Keagan@cth.co.za ; Bongumsa@cth.co.za 011 403 2765