Manyanyani Security Services CC v Sedibeng Water and Another (2003/2019) [2019] ZAFSHC 102 (18 June 2019)

Manyanyani Security Services CC v Sedibeng Water and Another (2003/2019) [2019] ZAFSHC 102 (18 June 2019)

The court found that the applicant failed to establish urgency as required by Rule 6(12), having delayed its response to the notice and not adequately explaining the delay. The applicant did not set forth sufficient circumstances to justify deviation from normal procedures. Furthermore, the requirements for an interim interdict were not satisfied, as the applicant did not demonstrate a prima facie right or irreparable harm, and had an alternative contractual remedy. The arbitration process had already resulted in an interim award, which was final and binding, and the applicant's attempt to seek relief on issues already decided was impermissible. Consequently, the application was struck...

Citation
[2019] ZAFSHC 102
Parties
Applicant: Manyanyani Security Services CC; Respondent: Sedibeng Water; Respondent: M.A. Shasha, Acting Chief Executive
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 June 2019
Case Number
2003/2019
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Interim Interdict Pending Arbitration; Opposed Motion
Outcome
Application struck from the roll for lack of urgency, with costs awarded against the applicant.
Judges
V.M. Morobane
Legal Topics
Interim Interdict, Urgency in Motion Proceedings, Arbitration Clauses, Contract Termination
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Interim Interdict Urgency in Motion Proceedings Arbitration Clauses Contract Termination

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

Manyanyani Security Services CC

Applicant

Sedibeng Water

Respondent

M.A. Shasha, Acting Chief Executive

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Interim Interdict Pending Arbitration; Opposed Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application is urgent as contemplated by Rule 6(12) of the Uniform Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has established the requirements for an interim interdict pending arbitration.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has an alternative remedy other than urgent court relief.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to establish urgency as required by Rule 6(12), having delayed its response to the notice and not adequately explaining the delay. The applicant did not set forth sufficient circumstances to justify deviation from normal procedures. Furthermore, the requirements for an interim interdict were not satisfied, as the applicant did not demonstrate a prima facie right or irreparable harm, and had an alternative contractual remedy. The arbitration process had already resulted in an interim award, which was final and binding, and the applicant's attempt to seek relief on issues already decided was impermissible. Consequently, the application was struck...

Court Disposition

Application struck from the roll for lack of urgency, with costs awarded against the applicant.

Orders

  • The application is struck from the roll for lack of urgency, with costs.