Seketso and Others v South African National Civics Organisation and Others (7016/2019) [2024] ZAGPJHC 373 (17 January 2024)
The court held that the mere fact that an order was granted in the urgent court does not entitle the reconsideration application to be heard urgently. The applicants must independently establish that the reconsideration should be heard as a matter of urgency. The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] ZAGPJHC 373
- Parties
- Applicant: Packet Seaketso and Others; Applicant: South African National Civics Organisation Johannesburg City Hall NEC (“2023 SANCO JHB”); Respondent: 2023 SANCO Durban; Respondent: Richard (Hlope) Mkhungo; Respondent: Chris Malemetja; Respondent: Lucky Baloi; Respondent: Skhumbuzo Mpanza; Respondent: Mike Soko; Respondent: Bongikhaya Qama; Respondent: Sylvia Mdaka; Respondent: Judith Tshabala; Respondent: Isaac Plaatjie; Respondent: The 2023 NIC; Respondent: All other persons whose details are unknown, purportedly elected under the ambit and auspices of the conference of 24th and 25th November 2023; Respondent: All other persons purportedly acting in terms of the ambit and auspices of SANCO Alexander and Durban
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 7016/2019
- Procedural Posture
- Urgent Application / Application for Reconsideration of Urgent Order
- Outcome
- Application struck off the roll for lack of urgency; costs awarded against first and second applicants jointly and severally.
- Judges
- Wepener
- Legal Topics
- Urgency in Applications, Rule 6 12 C, Reconsideration of Orders
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Packet Seaketso and Others
Applicant
South African National Civics Organisation Johannesburg City Hall NEC (“2023 SANCO JHB”)
Applicant
2023 SANCO Durban
Respondent
Richard (Hlope) Mkhungo
Respondent
Chris Malemetja
Respondent
Lucky Baloi
Respondent
Skhumbuzo Mpanza
Respondent
Mike Soko
Respondent
Bongikhaya Qama
Respondent
Sylvia Mdaka
Respondent
Judith Tshabala
Respondent
Isaac Plaatjie
Respondent
The 2023 NIC
Respondent
All other persons whose details are unknown, purportedly elected under the ambit and auspices of the conference of 24th and 25th November 2023
Respondent
All other persons purportedly acting in terms of the ambit and auspices of SANCO Alexander and Durban
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Reconsideration of Urgent Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application for reconsideration of the previous urgent order should be heard as an urgent matter.
- 2 Whether the applicants have established sufficient urgency to justify hearing the matter out of the ordinary course.
- 3 Whether the disputes of fact and contentions raised can be properly determined in an urgent application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the mere fact that an order was granted in the urgent court does not entitle the reconsideration application to be heard urgently. The applicants must independently establish that the reconsideration should be heard as a matter of urgency. The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate sufficient urgency, as the issues raised are complex and involve disputes of fact that cannot be properly determined on the papers in an urgent application. The applicants can obtain redress in the ordinary course, and there is no justification for deviating from normal procedure.
Court Disposition
Application struck off the roll for lack of urgency; costs awarded against first and second applicants jointly and severally.
Orders
- The application is struck off the roll.
- The first and second applicants are ordered to pay the respondents' costs jointly and severally.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
64 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO: 7016/2019
DATE: 17-01-2024
1. REPORTABLE: NO.
2. OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO.
3. REVISED.
In the matter between
PACKET SEAKETSO AND OTHERS First Applicant
SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL CIVICS
ORGANISATION JOHANNESBURG CITY
HALL NEC (“2023 SANCO JHB”)
Second Applicant
And
2023 SANCO DURBAN First
Respondent
RICHARD (HLOPE) MKHUNGO Second
Respondent
CHRIS MALEMETJA Third
Respondent
LUCKY BALOI Fourth
Respondent
SKHUMBUZO MPANZA Fifth
Respondent
MIKE SOKO Sixth
Respondent
BONGIKHAYA QAMA Seventh
Respondent
SYLVIA MDAKA Eighth
Respondent
JUDITH TSHABALA Ninth
Respondent
ISAAC PLAATJIE Tenth
Respondent
THE 2023 NIC Eleventh
Respondent
ALL OTHER PERSONS WHOSE DETAILS
ARE UNKNOWN, PURPORTEDLY ELECTED
UNDER THE AMBIT AND AUSPICES OF
THE CONFERENCE OF 24TH AND 25TH
NOVEMBER 2023 Twelfth
Respondent
ALL OTHER PERSONS PURPORTEDLY
ACTING IN TERMS OF THE AMBIT AND
AUSPICES OF SANCO ALEXANDER
AND DURBAN Thirteenth
Respondent
JUDGMENT
WEPENER, J:
The application before me is one for reconsideration of an order issued by this Court in November 2023. However, more important is that the matter is brought in the urgent court.
The main argument was that because of the provisions of rule 6(12)(c) of the Rules of Court, it may be set down in the urgent court. That rule provides, 6(12)(c):
“A person against whom an order was granted in such person’s absence in the urgent application, may, by notice set down the matter for reconsideration of the order.”
It is argued that because of that provision, a matter that was granted in the urgent court, may be brought back for reconsideration in the urgent court. I do not agree. A party who makes use of the provisions of the Rules of Court, to bring a matter to the urgent court must, in its own right, make a case while the reconsideration should be heard urgently.
I agree with the judgment of Wilson J, recently published in Volvo Financial Services Southern Africa (Pty) Limited with Adamas Tkolose Trading CC 2023 ZAGP JHC 486 in which he said that:
“Urgency is determined not by the nature of the claim brought, but by the circumstances in which the application seeks its adjudication.”
The remaining arguments were of a general nature regarding the rights of the applicants vis a vis the respondents and which would be applicable in a matter whether it is heard urgently or otherwise.
I find that the matter lacks sufficient urgency to be heard out of the normal course in which applications are heard in this Division.
There is no reason why the applicants cannot get redress in due course and have the issues determined. In any event, the matter contains lengthy contentions and disputes of facts that cannot be properly determined on papers before me, especially in an urgent application,
The urgent application address presented by the applicants in this matter, which took the most part of an hour, underlines the very fact that it is not a matter that can be decided without careful consideration of the many issues that are raised on the papers.
I find that the matter should not have been brought in the urgent court today, whether by the first or the second applicant which makes no difference.
In the circumstances I strike the matter off the roll and I order that the first and second applicants are to pay the respondents costs jointly and severely.
WEPENER, J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
DATE: ……………….