Mapungubwe Game Reserve and Another v Small (7861/2020) [2021] ZALMPPHC 37 (2 February 2021)

Mapungubwe Game Reserve and Another v Small (7861/2020) [2021] ZALMPPHC 37 (2 February 2021)

The court found that the Applicants failed to establish true urgency as required by Rule 6(12)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court. The dispute regarding hunting rights had existed for a considerable period, with the Respondent's position communicated well before the alleged 'trigger event.' The Applicants' delay in bringing the application and reliance on inconvenience, rather than absence of substantial redress, did not justify the matter being heard on an urgent basis. The court held that the loss of a hunting opportunity or recreational activity does not amount to legal urgency or irreparable harm. Consequently, the application was struck off the roll for lack of urgency, and the merits...

Citation
[2021] ZALMPPHC 37
Parties
Applicant: Mapungubwe Game Reserve; Applicant: Leif Eric Rahmqvist; Respondent: Eugene Small
Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 February 2021
Case Number
7861/2020
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interim Interdict
Outcome
Application struck off the roll for lack of urgency; costs awarded against Applicants.
Judges
E M Makgoba
Legal Topics
Urgent Interdict, Lease Agreement Dispute, Balance of Convenience, Rule 6 Uniform Rules, Hunting Rights
Civil Procedure Land and Property Urgent Interdict Lease Agreement Dispute Balance of Convenience Rule 6 Uniform Rules Hunting Rights

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mapungubwe Game Reserve

Applicant

Leif Eric Rahmqvist

Applicant

Eugene Small

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interim Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application is urgent and should be heard as such.
  2. 2 Whether the lease agreement permits the Second Applicant and his associates to hunt on the leased game farms.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Applicants failed to establish true urgency as required by Rule 6(12)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court. The dispute regarding hunting rights had existed for a considerable period, with the Respondent's position communicated well before the alleged 'trigger event.' The Applicants' delay in bringing the application and reliance on inconvenience, rather than absence of substantial redress, did not justify the matter being heard on an urgent basis. The court held that the loss of a hunting opportunity or recreational activity does not amount to legal urgency or irreparable harm. Consequently, the application was struck off the roll for lack of urgency, and the merits...

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • The application is struck off the roll with costs on party and party scale.
  • Applicants may proceed with the matter at a hearing in due course on the opposed motion roll.