Nkosi v African Pride Irene (12473/2021) [2021] ZAGPPHC 474 (23 March 2021)
- Citation
- [2021] ZAGPPHC 474
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Dosio
- Case number
- 12473/2021
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Dosio
- Case number
- 12473/2021
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
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.
02
Material facts
Parties
Reboneng Meisie Nkosi
ApplicantAfrican Pride Irene
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Urgent Application / Hearing on Urgency
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the application is urgent and should be heard on the urgent roll.
- 02
Whether the applicant's urgency is self-created.
- 03
Whether the applicant is entitled to relief on an urgent basis.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant contended that the venue she had booked was no longer available, as communicated by the respondent on 12 February 2021. She argued that ongoing discussions with the respondent did not resolve the issue, and that the matter was enrolled on the urgent roll but removed due to non-compliance with directives. The applicant maintained that alternative dates were not suitable and that the urgency was genuine due to the nature of her planned event.
- Respondent
- The respondent argued that the applicant was informed well in advance that the venue was unavailable for the requested dates. They asserted that alternative dates, specifically 24 April and 1 May 2021, were offered and not disputed by the applicant in a replying affidavit. The respondent maintained that the applicant's urgency was self-created and that any damages could be addressed in the ordinary course.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
South African civil procedure principles
Urgency must not be self-created; applicants must act promptly and cannot rely on circumstances of their own making to justify urgent relief.
- 02
Relevant case law on urgency in motion proceedings
Where alternative remedies or dates are available, the matter should be heard in the ordinary course and not on the urgent roll.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
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.
Obiter and limits
- The court noted that the applicant's personal reasons for urgency, such as family anniversaries and birthdays, do not justify deviation from established procedural rules.
- The matter did not warrant a punitive costs order, as the dispute was not vexatious or frivolous.
Court disposition
Application dismissed with costs.
- The application is dismissed.
- The applicant is to pay the costs of this application.
Source and reliance status
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Judgment
(Inlexso Innovative Legal Services) of
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA
CASE NO: 12473/2021
DATE: 2021.03.23
NOT
REPORTABLE
NOT
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES
REVISED
In the matter between
REBONENG
MEISIE NKOSI Applicant
and
AFRICAN
PRIDE IRENE Respondent
JUDGMENT
DOSIO, AJ: Having heard counsel in respect to the question of urgency the following aspects appear to be present.
The applicant was informed by email on the 12th of February 2021, that the venue she had booked was no longer available. According to the applicant’s counsel, ongoing talks proceeded between the applicant’s legal representative and the respondent legal representatives. They received a further letter from the respondents dated the 4th of March 2021 which restated the position that the venue was not available.
I find it strange that ongoing talks proceeded between the applicant and the respondent emanating from the initial refusal to host the applicant’s function on the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th of April when the answer was clearly stated in an email dated the 12th of February 2021. The email is very clear.
In light thereof, the applicant had an opportunity to enrol this matter already on the urgent roll for Tuesday’s date of the 16 February, 23 February, 12 March, and 9 March. The applicant contents the matter indeed was enrolled on 11 March 2021, which is in fact a Thursday, but that it was removed from the roll due to the non-compliance of the directives. In response to the Court’s questions why the matter was not then enrolled on the following Tuesday namely 16 March 2021 the answer given is that a date of 18 March 2021 was given but when the applicant wanted to proceed with this matter on 18 March, they were told by the secretary of the judge on urgent duty that this could not proceed and that a date of 23 March was given.
On the notice of enrolment, this appears somewhat different. As a notice of enrolment loaded on CaseLines which is dated 12 March 2021 which is the day after the matter was removed on 11 March 2021 specifically involves matter for 23 March 2021 and not 16 March 2021 which is what the applicant’s counsel states and which was, in fact, the next available date.
In the answering affidavit that has been filed, there is a version given that the applicant’s and respondent’s representatives a Mr C[?] had discussed tentative alternative dates to the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th of April 2021 namely the 24 of April 2021 and the 1st of May 2021. In response to the Court’s questions why there is no replying affidavit to dispute these dates, this was met by a reply by the applicant’s counsel that is in the founding affidavit. The founding affidavit does not deal with the dates 24 April 2021 or 1 May 2021 which were clearly alternative dates suggested in able to proceed on the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th of April 2021. The transcript remains undisputed clearly suggest that the decision as to the final dates would have been agreed upon after 15 February 2021.
The applicant’s dispute this. However, there is no replying affidavit to place this on record. It is clear, all along, another
date in April namely 24 April 2021 is available to the applicant to host her event. For the Court, the month of April being the
applicant’s wedding anniversary month, her husband and son’s birthday month and even if this date of 24 April 2021 was not available 1 May 2021 which was the tentative date agreed upon was a date which in the conversation which is not dispute is a date which is closer to the applicants own birthday month, which is in May.
Accordingly, the issue of not finding a venue in time is all superfluous as the actual venue of the respondent and not another venue was, in fact, available meeting the same standards but on the dates 24 April or 1 May 2021.
Accordingly, I find that:
1. Urgency is self-created.
2. The issue of damages of the applicant may be addressed with sufficient redress in due course on the ordinary rolls. As to cost, I do not believe this is a matter that warrants a punitive cost order. Accordingly, the applicant is to pay the cost of this application.
That is the order of this Court.
DOSIO,
AJ
ACTING JUDGE OF THE
HIGH COURT
DATE: 23/07/2021
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.