Nene v National Lotteries Commission (0224114-2024) [2024] ZAGPJHC 286 (14 March 2024)

Nene v National Lotteries Commission (0224114-2024) [2024] ZAGPJHC 286 (14 March 2024)

The court found that Ms Nene failed to establish any exceptional circumstances or factual basis to support her apprehension that the disciplinary enquiry is unfair or unlawful. The alleged irregularities, such as refusal to provide information and dismissal of preliminary applications, do not meet the threshold for urgent intervention. The application was not properly pleaded in contract, raising jurisdictional concerns, but the court assumed jurisdiction solely to decide urgency. The conduct of the applicant's attorneys, including ignoring practice directives and abandoning the client during the hearing, was prima facie worthy of censure. Consequently, the application was struck from the...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 286
Parties
Applicant: Nompumelelo Nene; Respondent: National Lotteries Commission
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 March 2024
Case Number
024114/2024
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Strike Matter From the Roll for Want of Urgency
Outcome
Application struck from the roll for want of urgency; costs order contemplated against applicant's attorneys.
Judges
Wilson
Legal Topics
Disciplinary Proceedings, Urgency, Exceptional Circumstances, Jurisdiction, Costs De Bonis Propriis
Labour Law Civil Procedure Disciplinary Proceedings Urgency Exceptional Circumstances Jurisdiction Costs De Bonis Propriis

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nompumelelo Nene

Applicant

National Lotteries Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application to stay the disciplinary enquiry is urgent.
  2. 2 Whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify court intervention in the disciplinary process.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has established a basis for the court to intervene prior to the disciplinary hearing.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Ms Nene failed to establish any exceptional circumstances or factual basis to support her apprehension that the disciplinary enquiry is unfair or unlawful. The alleged irregularities, such as refusal to provide information and dismissal of preliminary applications, do not meet the threshold for urgent intervention. The application was not properly pleaded in contract, raising jurisdictional concerns, but the court assumed jurisdiction solely to decide urgency. The conduct of the applicant's attorneys, including ignoring practice directives and abandoning the client during the hearing, was prima facie worthy of censure. Consequently, the application was struck from the...

Court Disposition

Application struck from the roll for want of urgency; costs order contemplated against applicant's attorneys.

Orders

  • The application is struck from the roll for want of urgency.
  • The applicant’s attorneys are invited to show cause, on affidavit and written submissions by 28 March 2024, why they should not bear the costs of this application de bonis propriis, on the attorney and client scale, including costs of two counsel.