Ratlou Local Municipality v Sejake and Others (UM185/2022) [2022] ZANWHC 42 (11 October 2022)

Ratlou Local Municipality v Sejake and Others (UM185/2022) [2022] ZANWHC 42 (11 October 2022)

The court found that the applicant failed to establish urgency as required by Rule 6(12). The delay between notification of the writ and launching the application was not adequately explained, and the applicant did not demonstrate that substantial redress could not be obtained in due course. The previous application...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] ZANWHC 42
Parties
Applicant: Ratlou Local Municipality; Respondent: Sebatana Cassius Sejake; Respondent: First National Bank Limited; Respondent: The Acting Sheriff: Itsoseng (Ditsobotla)
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 October 2022
Case Number
UM185/2022
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Strike From Roll for Lack of Urgency
Outcome
Application struck from the roll for lack of urgency with costs.
Judges
K Mongale
Legal Topics
Urgency, Striking From Roll, Writ of Execution, Non Joinder, Res Judicata, Lis Pendens
Civil Procedure Urgency Striking From Roll Writ of Execution Non Joinder Res Judicata Lis Pendens

Source-derived case record

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ratlou Local Municipality

Applicant

Sebatana Cassius Sejake

Respondent

First National Bank Limited

Respondent

The Acting Sheriff: Itsoseng (Ditsobotla)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application should be heard as urgent.
  2. 2 Whether the matter is res judicata or lis pendens due to previous proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether non-joinder of the Municipal Council is fatal to the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to establish urgency as required by Rule 6(12). The delay between notification of the writ and launching the application was not adequately explained, and the applicant did not demonstrate that substantial redress could not be obtained in due course. The previous application was struck from the roll for lack of urgency and did not dispose of the merits, nor were all parties the same, so res judicata and lis pendens did not apply. The non-joinder of the Municipal Council was not fatal, as the municipality acts through its council and no separate legal personality exists. Ultimately, the application was struck from the roll for lack of urgency, with...

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • The application is struck from the roll for lack of urgency.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the application.