Mkhize v South African Legal Practice Council (13204/2022) [2022] ZAGPPHC 901 (23 November 2022)

Mkhize v South African Legal Practice Council (13204/2022) [2022] ZAGPPHC 901 (23 November 2022)

The court found that the application did not warrant urgent consideration. The applicant's request for a rule nisi in contempt proceedings could be addressed in the ordinary course, undermining the claim of urgency. The review application was not set down for the unopposed roll, and the respondent had delivered the Rule 53 record as required. The applicant's dissatisfaction with the record's completeness could be remedied through established procedural avenues. Accordingly, the application was struck from the urgent roll.

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 901
Parties
Applicant: Advocate Senzo Wiseman Mkhize; Respondent: South African Legal Practice Council
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 November 2022
Case Number
13204/2022
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Strike Matter From Urgent Roll
Outcome
Application struck from the urgent roll.
Judges
S Cowen
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Rule 53 Record, Urgency, Review Proceedings
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Rule 53 Record Urgency Review Proceedings

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Advocate Senzo Wiseman Mkhize

Applicant

South African Legal Practice Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Strike Matter From Urgent Roll

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application should be heard on an urgent basis.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent complied with the previous court order to deliver the Rule 53 record.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to a rule nisi for contempt of court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application did not warrant urgent consideration. The applicant's request for a rule nisi in contempt proceedings could be addressed in the ordinary course, undermining the claim of urgency. The review application was not set down for the unopposed roll, and the respondent had delivered the Rule 53 record as required. The applicant's dissatisfaction with the record's completeness could be remedied through established procedural avenues. Accordingly, the application was struck from the urgent roll.

Court Disposition

Application struck from the urgent roll.

Orders

  • The application is struck from the urgent roll.