Nkosi v African Pride Irene (12473/2021) [2021] ZAGPPHC 474 (23 March 2021)

Nkosi v African Pride Irene (12473/2021) [2021] ZAGPPHC 474 (23 March 2021)

The court found that the applicant's urgency was self-created, as she was informed of the venue's unavailability on 12 February 2021 and had ample opportunity to enroll the matter on the urgent roll. The applicant failed to dispute the respondent's version that alternative dates were available and did not file a replying affidavit to challenge this. The court held that the applicant could host her event on the alternative dates offered, and any damages suffered could be addressed in due course. Therefore, the application did not warrant urgent relief and was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 474
Parties
Applicant: Reboneng Meisie Nkosi; Respondent: African Pride Irene
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 March 2021
Case Number
12473/2021
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Hearing on Urgency
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Dosio
Legal Topics
Urgency, Self Created Urgency, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Urgency Self Created Urgency Costs Order

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Reboneng Meisie Nkosi

Applicant

African Pride Irene

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Hearing on Urgency

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application is urgent and should be heard on the urgent roll.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's urgency is self-created.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to relief on an urgent basis.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's urgency was self-created, as she was informed of the venue's unavailability on 12 February 2021 and had ample opportunity to enroll the matter on the urgent roll. The applicant failed to dispute the respondent's version that alternative dates were available and did not file a replying affidavit to challenge this. The court held that the applicant could host her event on the alternative dates offered, and any damages suffered could be addressed in due course. Therefore, the application did not warrant urgent relief and was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicant is to pay the costs of this application.