Roan Coal (Pty) Limited v Nonyane NO and Others (55323/17) [2018] ZAGPPHC 275 (31 January 2018)
- Citation
- [2018] ZAGPPHC 275
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Tuchten
- Case number
- 55323/17
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Tuchten
- Case number
- 55323/17
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The application was dismissed with costs following argument in the urgent motion court. The judge delivered an extempore judgment at the time, and those reasons are on record. There is no need to supplement or repeat those reasons in writing, as they are available for transcription. The request for further reasons does not warrant additional commentary.
Court disposition
Application dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The application is dismissed with costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Roan Coal (Pty) Limited
ApplicantTH Nonyane NO and Others
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Urgent Application / Reasons for Order Following Urgent Motion Court
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the urgent application should be dismissed with costs.
- 02
Whether further reasons for the order are required beyond the extempore judgment.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant sought urgent relief in the motion court and subsequently requested written reasons for the dismissal of its application.
- Respondent
- The respondents opposed the application and were awarded costs upon dismissal. No further arguments are recorded in this reasons judgment.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Practice of the High Court
Where an extempore judgment is delivered, the reasons are on record and may be transcribed; the judge is not obliged to provide further written reasons unless necessary.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The application was dismissed with costs following argument in the urgent motion court. The judge delivered an extempore judgment at the time, and those reasons are on record. There is no need to supplement or repeat those reasons in writing, as they are available for transcription. The request for further reasons does not warrant additional commentary.
Obiter and limits
- The judge notes that the reasons for the order are already on record and can be transcribed if required.
- No further reasons are necessary beyond those delivered extempore at the conclusion of argument.
Court disposition
Application dismissed with costs.
- The application is dismissed with costs.
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
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO: 55323/17
DATE: 31/01/2018
In the matter between:
ROAN COAL (PTY)
LIMITED
Applicantand
TH NONYANE NO and
OTHERS
Respondents
JUDGMENT
Tuchten J:
1 I today received a written request dated 24 August 2017 to provide reasons for an order I made in the urgent motion court on 23 August 2017. I think I received the same request same time ago and conveyed a written response through my Registrar. I shall repeat that response.
2 I dismissed the application with costs. I gave an extempore judgment at the conclusion of argument. My reasons are therefore on record and can, I assume, be transcribed. I have nothing to add.
______
NB Tuchten
Judge of the High Court
31 January 2018
Roan55325.17
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.