Madiya v Peete and Another (061865/2025) [2025] ZAGPJHC 522 (2 June 2025)

Madiya v Peete and Another (061865/2025) [2025] ZAGPJHC 522 (2 June 2025)

The court found that the applicant failed to establish urgency. She had not obtained planning permission to build or rent out rooms, had not provided evidence of actual storage costs beyond a single invoice for R2 000 for two months, and had not shown that she was unable to store the items herself. The court held that the mere existence of a right or alleged encroachment does not render a matter urgent. Accordingly, the application was struck from the roll for want of urgency.

Citation
[2025] ZAGPJHC 522
Parties
Applicant: Madiya, SS; Respondent: Peete, NTN; Respondent: City of Johannesburg
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 June 2025
Case Number
061865/2025
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Struck From Roll for Want of Urgency
Outcome
Application struck from the roll for want of urgency.
Judges
Yacoob
Legal Topics
Urgency in Motion Proceedings, Property Encroachment, Planning Permission
Civil Procedure Land and Property Urgency in Motion Proceedings Property Encroachment Planning Permission

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Madiya, SS

Applicant

Peete, NTN

Respondent

City of Johannesburg

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Struck From Roll for Want of Urgency

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application is urgent and should be heard on an urgent basis.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has established sufficient grounds for urgency based on alleged losses and encroachment.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's rights justify urgent relief in the absence of planning permission.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to establish urgency. She had not obtained planning permission to build or rent out rooms, had not provided evidence of actual storage costs beyond a single invoice for R2 000 for two months, and had not shown that she was unable to store the items herself. The court held that the mere existence of a right or alleged encroachment does not render a matter urgent. Accordingly, the application was struck from the roll for want of urgency.

Court Disposition

Application struck from the roll for want of urgency.

Orders

  • The application is struck from the roll for want of urgency.