Macingwane v Masekwameng and Others (27925/2019) [2019] ZAGPJHC 423 (23 August 2019)

Macingwane v Masekwameng and Others (27925/2019) [2019] ZAGPJHC 423 (23 August 2019)

The court found that the applicant failed to establish sufficient urgency to justify the matter being heard on an urgent basis. The applicant did not provide adequate facts demonstrating irreparable prejudice or that he could not obtain substantial redress in the ordinary course. Allegations of personal prejudice, dignity infringement, or destabilization of NAFCOC were not substantiated with specific facts. The court concluded that the requirements for urgency were not met and struck the application from the roll with costs.

Citation
[2019] ZAGPJHC 423
Parties
Applicant: Macingwane, S V; Respondent: Masekwameng, I N; Respondent: Sikhosana, S S; Respondent: Mosena, S G; Respondent: Letsoela, T E; Respondent: Matlala, M R D; Respondent: Persons appearing on Annexure SMV1; Respondent: National African Federated Chamber of Commerce and Industry
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 August 2019
Case Number
27925/2019
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Strike From Roll for Lack of Urgency
Outcome
Application struck from the roll with costs.
Judges
S Yacoob
Legal Topics
Urgency in Motion Proceedings, Corporate Governance, Contempt of Court, Removal of Officer
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Urgency in Motion Proceedings Corporate Governance Contempt of Court Removal of Officer

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Macingwane, S V

Applicant

Masekwameng, I N

Respondent

Sikhosana, S S

Respondent

Mosena, S G

Respondent

Letsoela, T E

Respondent

Matlala, M R D

Respondent

Persons appearing on Annexure SMV1

Respondent

National African Federated Chamber of Commerce and Industry

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Strike From Roll for Lack of Urgency

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant established sufficient urgency to justify hearing the matter on an urgent basis.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant would suffer irreparable prejudice if the matter was not heard urgently.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents acted in contempt of a previous court order regarding the scheduling of meetings and removal of the applicant as President of NAFCOC.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to establish sufficient urgency to justify the matter being heard on an urgent basis. The applicant did not provide adequate facts demonstrating irreparable prejudice or that he could not obtain substantial redress in the ordinary course. Allegations of personal prejudice, dignity infringement, or destabilization of NAFCOC were not substantiated with specific facts. The court concluded that the requirements for urgency were not met and struck the application from the roll with costs.

Court Disposition

Application struck from the roll with costs.

Orders

  • The application is struck from the roll with costs.