Maluleka and Another v Minister of Communication and Digital Technologies and Others (2025-008898) [2025] ZAGPPHC 149 (7 February 2025)

Maluleka and Another v Minister of Communication and Digital Technologies and Others (2025-008898) [2025] ZAGPPHC 149 (7 February 2025)

The court found that the applicants failed to establish genuine urgency as required by Rule 6(12) of the Uniform Rules of Court. The urgency was deemed self-created and subjectively perceived, as the applicants were aware of the licence expiry since August 2024 but only acted at the last moment. The court emphasized the need to preserve the sanctity of the urgent court for deserving matters and held that the applicants did not provide sufficient reasons why substantial redress could not be afforded at a later hearing. Consequently, the application was struck from the roll for lack of urgency, and costs were awarded against the applicants.

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 149
Parties
Applicant: Nyumani Nobride Maluleka and Another Vhembe FM NPO; Respondent: Minister of Communication and Digital Technologies and Five Others ICASA Mathobo Thendo Percyven Mathobo Vhahangwele Shumani Portia Ndou Matodzi Robert Mphephu
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 February 2025
Case Number
2025-008898
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Strike Matter From the Roll for Lack of Urgency
Outcome
Application struck from the roll for lack of urgency; costs awarded against the applicants.
Judges
Yende
Legal Topics
Urgent Application, Uniform Rule 6 12, Self Created Urgency, Costs Award
Civil Procedure Urgent Application Uniform Rule 6 12 Self Created Urgency Costs Award

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nyumani Nobride Maluleka and Another Vhembe FM NPO

Applicant

Minister of Communication and Digital Technologies and Five Others ICASA Mathobo Thendo Percyven Mathobo Vhahangwele Shumani Portia Ndou Matodzi Robert Mphephu

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have established genuine urgency justifying the matter being heard on an urgent basis.
  2. 2 Whether the urgency claimed by the applicants is self-created or subjectively perceived.
  3. 3 Whether the application should be struck from the roll for lack of urgency.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to establish genuine urgency as required by Rule 6(12) of the Uniform Rules of Court. The urgency was deemed self-created and subjectively perceived, as the applicants were aware of the licence expiry since August 2024 but only acted at the last moment. The court emphasized the need to preserve the sanctity of the urgent court for deserving matters and held that the applicants did not provide sufficient reasons why substantial redress could not be afforded at a later hearing. Consequently, the application was struck from the roll for lack of urgency, and costs were awarded against the applicants.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • The applicant’s urgent application is struck from the roll for lack of urgency.
  • The applicant shall pay the respondent’s costs for the urgent application, including the costs of 7 February 2025, on scale C.