S.J (Born M) v M.K.J and Another (5250/17) [2017] ZAECMHC 53 (14 December 2017)

S.J (Born M) v M.K.J and Another (5250/17) [2017] ZAECMHC 53 (14 December 2017)

The court found that the applicant failed to establish genuine urgency, as the circumstances justifying deviation from standard notice requirements were absent. The applicant waited three weeks before launching the application and only acted after breaching the Magistrate's order. The truncated notice period was unjustified, and the application should have been brought using the long Form 2(a) and Rule 53. The relief sought was academic since the relevant events had passed, and the review application was a non-starter. The applicant abused the court process by launching an unnecessary urgent application, warranting the striking of the matter from the roll with costs.

Citation
[2017] ZAECMHC 53
Parties
Applicant: S.J (Born M); Respondent: M.K.J; Respondent: The Magistrate, Regional Court, Mthatha
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 December 2017
Case Number
5250/17
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application to Strike Urgent Review From the Roll
Outcome
Application struck from the roll with costs.
Judges
Z. M. Nhlangulela
Legal Topics
Urgency in Motion Proceedings, Form of Notice, Review of Magistrates Decision
Civil Procedure Urgency in Motion Proceedings Form of Notice Review of Magistrates Decision

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S.J (Born M)

Applicant

M.K.J

Respondent

The Magistrate, Regional Court, Mthatha

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application to Strike Urgent Review From the Roll

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application was urgent and justified deviation from standard notice requirements.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant abused court process by launching the application on truncated notice.
  3. 3 Whether the review application was properly brought in terms of Rule 53.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to establish genuine urgency, as the circumstances justifying deviation from standard notice requirements were absent. The applicant waited three weeks before launching the application and only acted after breaching the Magistrate's order. The truncated notice period was unjustified, and the application should have been brought using the long Form 2(a) and Rule 53. The relief sought was academic since the relevant events had passed, and the review application was a non-starter. The applicant abused the court process by launching an unnecessary urgent application, warranting the striking of the matter from the roll with costs.

Court Disposition

Application struck from the roll with costs.

Orders

  • The application is struck from the roll.
  • Costs are awarded against the applicant on the opposed motion court scale.