Maluleke v Maluleke and Others (122735/2023) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1992 (1 December 2023)

Maluleke v Maluleke and Others (122735/2023) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1992 (1 December 2023)

The court found that the application to anticipate and reconsider the previous urgent order was procedurally flawed. The order of Dlamini J was not obtained ex parte, as the applicants were given an opportunity to file answering papers, and thus rule 6(8) was inapplicable. There was no rule nisi to anticipate, and the application did not seek urgency in the notice of motion. The applicants failed to advance plausible facts demonstrating that the information sought was in imminent danger of dissipation. The mere assertion that the crime under investigation is serious or a priority does not, without more, render the application urgent. In the absence of urgency and proper procedural...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 1992
Parties
Applicant: Joseph Maluleke; Respondent: Joseph Maluleke; Respondent: The Magistrate N.O.; Respondent: The Magistrates Commission; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions; Respondent: Minister of Police; Respondent: National Commissioner of Police; Respondent: Office of National Head: DPCI; Respondent: Captain Mphofa Patricia Magetse
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 December 2023
Case Number
122735/2023
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Anticipate and Reconsider Previous Urgent Order
Outcome
Application struck off the roll for lack of urgency; costs awarded against the applicants.
Judges
V Ngalwana
Legal Topics
Rule 6 8 Anticipation, Urgency, Interim Interdict, Review Application
Civil Procedure Rule 6 8 Anticipation Urgency Interim Interdict Review Application

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Maluleke

Applicant

Joseph Maluleke

Respondent

The Magistrate N.O.

Respondent

The Magistrates Commission

Respondent

Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Minister of Police

Respondent

National Commissioner of Police

Respondent

Office of National Head: DPCI

Respondent

Captain Mphofa Patricia Magetse

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Anticipate and Reconsider Previous Urgent Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application to anticipate and reconsider the previous urgent order is procedurally competent.
  2. 2 Whether the matter is urgent and justifies truncation of service periods.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants have demonstrated facts establishing urgency.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application to anticipate and reconsider the previous urgent order was procedurally flawed. The order of Dlamini J was not obtained ex parte, as the applicants were given an opportunity to file answering papers, and thus rule 6(8) was inapplicable. There was no rule nisi to anticipate, and the application did not seek urgency in the notice of motion. The applicants failed to advance plausible facts demonstrating that the information sought was in imminent danger of dissipation. The mere assertion that the crime under investigation is serious or a priority does not, without more, render the application urgent. In the absence of urgency and proper procedural...

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • The application is struck off the roll for lack of urgency.
  • The applicants are to pay the costs of this application on a party and party scale.