Phelelo and Others v Kgetlengrivier Local Municipality and Others (6521/24) [2025] ZANWHC 66 (2 April 2025)

Phelelo and Others v Kgetlengrivier Local Municipality and Others (6521/24) [2025] ZANWHC 66 (2 April 2025)

The court found that the applicants failed to establish urgency as required by Rule 6(12)(b). The founding papers did not set out explicit circumstances or reasons why substantial redress could not be obtained in due course. The applicants delayed approaching the court despite being aware of the sewerage spillages for months, and their conduct amounted to self-created urgency. The relief sought was incoherent, conflating interim and final relief, and prejudicial to the respondents. The application was struck off the roll for want of urgency, and costs were awarded against the applicants on a party and party scale.

Citation
[2025] ZANWHC 66
Parties
Applicant: Tsotsi Piet Phelelo; Applicant: Solly Mojakgoma; Applicant: Esther Vorster; Applicant: Catharina Elizabeth Marais; Applicant: Clean Up SA NPC; Respondent: Kgetlengrivier Local Municipality; Respondent: Municipal Manager – Mr Clement Letswalo; Respondent: Bojanala Platinum District Municipality; Respondent: Minister of Water & Sanitation; Respondent: Member of the Executive Council-Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, North West
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 April 2025
Case Number
6521/24
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Strike Off for Want of Urgency
Outcome
Application struck off the roll for want of urgency; costs awarded against the applicants on a party and party scale.
Judges
Mfenyana
Legal Topics
Urgent Interdict, Municipal Duties, Environmental Contamination, Rule 6 12 Procedure
Environmental Law Civil Procedure Urgent Interdict Municipal Duties Environmental Contamination Rule 6 12 Procedure

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tsotsi Piet Phelelo

Applicant

Solly Mojakgoma

Applicant

Esther Vorster

Applicant

Catharina Elizabeth Marais

Applicant

Clean Up SA NPC

Applicant

Kgetlengrivier Local Municipality

Respondent

Municipal Manager – Mr Clement Letswalo

Respondent

Bojanala Platinum District Municipality

Respondent

Minister of Water & Sanitation

Respondent

Member of the Executive Council-Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, North West

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Strike Off for Want of Urgency

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application is urgent and justifies deviation from normal court procedures.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have established sufficient grounds for urgent relief.
  3. 3 Whether the relief sought is coherent and competent in law.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to establish urgency as required by Rule 6(12)(b). The founding papers did not set out explicit circumstances or reasons why substantial redress could not be obtained in due course. The applicants delayed approaching the court despite being aware of the sewerage spillages for months, and their conduct amounted to self-created urgency. The relief sought was incoherent, conflating interim and final relief, and prejudicial to the respondents. The application was struck off the roll for want of urgency, and costs were awarded against the applicants on a party and party scale.

Court Disposition

Application struck off the roll for want of urgency; costs awarded against the applicants on a party and party scale.

Orders

  • The application is struck off the roll for want of urgency.
  • The costs of the application shall be borne by the applicants on a party and party scale on Scale C.