Matlala and Another v Head of Prison Leeuwkop Maximum Prison and Others (2024/059539) [2024] ZAGPJHC 711 (15 July 2024)

Matlala and Another v Head of Prison Leeuwkop Maximum Prison and Others (2024/059539) [2024] ZAGPJHC 711 (15 July 2024)

The applicants failed to comply with Uniform Rule 6(12)(b) by not setting out explicit circumstances rendering the matter urgent or providing reasons why substantial redress could not be afforded at a hearing in due course. Their founding affidavit focused on past events at Leeuwkop, but they were no longer incarcerated there and did not wish to return. No averments were made regarding urgency at Kgosi Mampuru or why the relief sought could not be obtained in the normal course. The application for final relief on an urgent basis was not justified, and the matter was struck from the roll for want of urgency.

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 711
Parties
Applicant: Mpho Floyd Matlala; Applicant: Juane Stephane Jacobs; Respondent: Head of Prison Leeuwkop Maximum Prison; Respondent: Assistant Head of Leeuwkop Maximum Prison; Respondent: Head of Case Management Committee; Respondent: Regional Commissioner of Gauteng; Respondent: Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 July 2024
Case Number
2024/059539
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application Struck From the Roll for Want of Urgency; Written Reasons Provided for Leave to Appeal.
Outcome
Application struck from the roll for want of urgency; no order as to costs.
Judges
L. Windell
Legal Topics
Urgency in Motion Proceedings, Uniform Rule 6 12, Striking From the Roll, Final Relief on Urgent Basis
Civil Procedure Urgency in Motion Proceedings Uniform Rule 6 12 Striking From the Roll Final Relief on Urgent Basis

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mpho Floyd Matlala

Applicant

Juane Stephane Jacobs

Applicant

Head of Prison Leeuwkop Maximum Prison

Respondent

Assistant Head of Leeuwkop Maximum Prison

Respondent

Head of Case Management Committee

Respondent

Regional Commissioner of Gauteng

Respondent

Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application Struck From the Roll for Want of Urgency; Written Reasons Provided for Leave to Appeal.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants established sufficient urgency to justify the enrolment of the application as urgent.
  2. 2 Whether the founding affidavit set out explicit circumstances rendering the matter urgent and reasons for lack of substantial redress at a hearing in due course.
  3. 3 Whether the application for final relief on an urgent basis met the requirements of Uniform Rule 6(12)(b).

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to comply with Uniform Rule 6(12)(b) by not setting out explicit circumstances rendering the matter urgent or providing reasons why substantial redress could not be afforded at a hearing in due course. Their founding affidavit focused on past events at Leeuwkop, but they were no longer incarcerated there and did not wish to return. No averments were made regarding urgency at Kgosi Mampuru or why the relief sought could not be obtained in the normal course. The application for final relief on an urgent basis was not justified, and the matter was struck from the roll for want of urgency.

Court Disposition

Application struck from the roll for want of urgency; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application is struck from the roll for want of urgency.
  • No order as to costs.