Mlezana and Others v South African Civic Organisation (3208/18) [2018] ZAECGHC 114 (12 November 2018)

Mlezana and Others v South African Civic Organisation (3208/18) [2018] ZAECGHC 114 (12 November 2018)

The court found that the applicants failed to establish urgency as required by Rule 6(12). The alleged prejudice—leadership disputes, factionalism, and ongoing organisational obligations—did not justify deviation from ordinary procedures or prejudicing other litigants. The harm described was not of a nature that warranted urgent intervention. Furthermore, the applicants did not provide proper authority to represent the additional individuals listed, as no affidavits, powers of attorney, or resolutions were furnished. Consequently, the matter was struck from the roll with costs for want of urgency.

Citation
[2018] ZAECGHC 114
Parties
Applicant: Zola Mlenzana; Applicant: Makhaya Somhlahlo; Applicant: Christopher Majikazana; Applicant: Anthony Dancey; Respondent: South African National Civic Organisation; Respondent: Richard Mdakane N.O.; Respondent: Zukile Luyenge N.O.
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 November 2018
Case Number
3208/18
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Strike Matter From the Roll for Lack of Urgency
Outcome
Application struck from the roll with costs for want of urgency.
Judges
Plasket
Legal Topics
Urgent Application Requirements, Rule 6 12, Prejudice to Litigants, Authority to Represent, Striking From Roll
Civil Procedure Urgent Application Requirements Rule 6 12 Prejudice to Litigants Authority to Represent Striking From Roll

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

Zola Mlenzana

Applicant

Makhaya Somhlahlo

Applicant

Christopher Majikazana

Applicant

Anthony Dancey

Applicant

South African National Civic Organisation

Respondent

Richard Mdakane N.O.

Respondent

Zukile Luyenge N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Strike Matter From the Roll for Lack of Urgency

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application brought by the applicants was urgent and justified deviation from ordinary court procedures.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants established sufficient prejudice to warrant urgent relief.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants had proper authority to represent other individuals listed in the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to establish urgency as required by Rule 6(12). The alleged prejudice—leadership disputes, factionalism, and ongoing organisational obligations—did not justify deviation from ordinary procedures or prejudicing other litigants. The harm described was not of a nature that warranted urgent intervention. Furthermore, the applicants did not provide proper authority to represent the additional individuals listed, as no affidavits, powers of attorney, or resolutions were furnished. Consequently, the matter was struck from the roll with costs for want of urgency.

Court Disposition

Application struck from the roll with costs for want of urgency.

Orders

  • The application is struck from the roll for want of urgency.
  • The applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the application.