Royal AM Football Club (Pty) Ltd v Venter N.O and Others (2025-011702) [2025] ZAGPPHC 131 (5 February 2025)
The court found that the applicant failed to meet the threshold for urgency as prescribed by Rule 6(12). The urgency relied upon was self-created and subjective, and the applicant did not provide sufficient reasons why substantial redress could not be obtained at a hearing in due course. The court emphasized the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] ZAGPPHC 131
- Parties
- Applicant: Royal AM Football Club (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Jaco Venter N.O; Respondent: The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services; Respondent: The National Soccer League
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 2025-011702
- Procedural Posture
- Urgent Application / Application to Strike From the Roll for Lack of Urgency
- Outcome
- Application struck from the roll for lack of urgency; costs awarded against the applicant in favour of the first and second respondents.
- Judges
- Yende
- Legal Topics
- Urgent Application, Uniform Rule 6 12, Self Created Urgency, Costs Order
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Royal AM Football Club (Pty) Ltd
Applicant
Jaco Venter N.O
Respondent
The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services
Respondent
The National Soccer League
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Strike From the Roll for Lack of Urgency
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has established sufficient urgency to justify the matter being heard on an urgent basis.
- 2 Whether self-created or subjectively perceived urgency entitles the applicant to urgent relief.
- 3 Whether the application should be struck from the roll for lack of urgency.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to meet the threshold for urgency as prescribed by Rule 6(12). The urgency relied upon was self-created and subjective, and the applicant did not provide sufficient reasons why substantial redress could not be obtained at a hearing in due course. The court emphasized the importance of preserving the sanctity of the urgent court for genuinely urgent matters and maintaining legal certainty. Consequently, the application was struck from the roll for lack of urgency, and costs were awarded against the applicant in favour of the first and second respondents.
Court Disposition
Application struck from the roll for lack of urgency; costs awarded against the applicant in favour of the first and second respondents.
Orders
- The applicant’s urgent application is struck from the roll for lack of urgency.
- The applicant shall pay the first and second respondents’ costs for the urgent application, including the costs of two counsel where employed on scale C.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
36 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
Case No. 2025-011702
1. REPORTABLE: NO
2. OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
3. REVISED: NO
DATE 5 February 2025
SIGNATURE
In the matter between:
ROYAL AM FOOTBALL CLUB (PTY) LTD
and
JACO VENTER N.O
(In his capacity as curator bonis of the applicant)
THE COMMISSIONER FOR THE SOUTH AFRIAN REVENUE SERVICES
THE NATIONAL SOCCER LEAGUE
Summary: Urgent Application -Uniform Rule of Court 6(12) -Applicants should set forth explicitly the reasons why the matter should be treated urgent-self -created / subjective perceived urgency does not entitle the applicants to urgent relief- application struck from the roll for lack of urgency. The Sanctity of the Urgent Court has to be preserved for matters that are deservingly, lest the Urgent Court would the flooded with matters that are undeserving, self-created /subjective orientated urgency.
JUDGMENT- EX TEMPORE
YENDE AJ
[1] The Court continues to give its ex-tempore judgment in this matter.
[2] Summary. An application is brought in terms of Rule of Court, Rule 6(1), the applicant should set forth explicitly the reasons why the matter is urgent. Self –created urgency does not entitle the applicants to urgent relief. Application struck from the roll for lack of urgency. The Sanctity of the Urgent Court has to be preserved for matters that are deservingly, lest the Urgent Court would the flooded with matters that are undeserving self-created therefore subjectively orientated urgency.
[3] This Court has consistently refused urgent applications in cases where the urgency relied-upon was subjective urgency, clearly self-created. Consistency is important in this context, as it informs the public and legal practitioners that rules of Court and Practice Directives can only be ignored at a litigant's peril. Legal certainty is one of the cornerstones of a legal system based on the Rule of Law.
[4] The test for urgency was eloquently formulated in East Rock Trading (PTY) Ltd and Another v Eagle Valley Granite and Another’s[1] where Justice Notshe AJ held that “There import thereof is that the procedure set out in Rule 6(12) is not for taking. An applicant has to set forth explicitly the circumstances which he avers render the matter urgent. More importantly, the applicant must state the reasons why he claims that he cannot be afforded substantial redress at a hearing in due course”.
[10] For all of these reasons and submissions advanced by the applicant together with the respondent’s counsel, I am not convinced that the applicant has overcome the threshold prescribed in Rule 6(12) and I am of the firm view that the application ought to be struck from the roll for lack of urgency.
[11] The application therefore falls to be struck from the roll and the costs should follow the suit.
Order
Accordingly, I make the following order: -
(1) The applicant’s urgent application be and is hereby struck from the roll for lack of urgency.
(2) The applicant shall pay the First and Second Respondent’s costs for the urgent application including the costs of two counsel wherein employed on scale C.
(3) No cost to the Third Respondent as it has no issue with the costs.
J YENDE
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
This judgment was prepared by YENDE AJ. It is handed down electronically by circulation to the parties/their legal representatives by e-mail and uploaded on Caselines electronic platform and by publication of the judgment to the South African Legal Information Institute. The date for hand-down is deemed 5 February 2025.
Appearances:
Advocate(s) for Applicant: R. MASTENBROEK SC Appearing with: B. BRAUN Instructed by: DBP ATTORNEYS INC Advocate(s) for First Respondent(s): E. COETZEE SC Appearing with: D. D. SWART Instructed by: VZLR ATTORNEYS Advocate for Second Respondent: C. NAUDE SC Instructed by: MACROBERTS ATTORNEYS Advocate(s) for Third Respondent: A. FRANKLIN SC Appearing with: M. DE BEER Instructed by: WEBBER WENZEL ATTORNEYS Heard: 5 February 2025 Delivered: 5 February 2025
[1] (11/33767) [2011] ZAGPJHC 196 at par 6.