SKG Africa (Pty) Ltd v Special Investigating Unit and Others (2025-034050) [2025] ZAGPPHC 485 (9 May 2025)
The court found that the application was not urgent and therefore did not warrant hearing on the urgent roll. The inclusion of an order directing the timeframes for the Applicant to institute review proceedings was erroneous and not supported by the conclusion reached at the hearing. Furthermore, the costs order was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] ZAGPPHC 485
- Parties
- Applicant: SKG Africa (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Special Investigating Unit; Respondent: Ryden International Property Consultants (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Benal Property Investments (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: The Royal Property Trust; Respondent: Shula Developers (Pty) Ltd
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 2025-034050
- Procedural Posture
- Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interdict; Correction of Order
- Outcome
- Application removed from the roll for lack of urgency; costs awarded against the Applicant.
- Judges
- MPN Mbongwe
- Legal Topics
- Urgency, Interdictory Relief, Costs Order, Removal From Roll
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
SKG Africa (Pty) Ltd
Applicant
Special Investigating Unit
Respondent
Ryden International Property Consultants (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Benal Property Investments (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
The Royal Property Trust
Respondent
Shula Developers (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interdict; Correction of Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application was urgent and warranted hearing on the urgent roll.
- 2 Whether the Applicant was entitled to interdictory relief pending review proceedings.
- 3 Whether the initial costs order was correctly made in favour of the Applicant instead of the First Respondent.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application was not urgent and therefore did not warrant hearing on the urgent roll. The inclusion of an order directing the timeframes for the Applicant to institute review proceedings was erroneous and not supported by the conclusion reached at the hearing. Furthermore, the costs order was incorrectly made in favour of the Applicant and should have been awarded to the First Respondent, given the lack of urgency and the unsuccessful application. The judgment was revised to correct these errors and align the orders with the findings made at the hearing.
Court Disposition
Application removed from the roll for lack of urgency; costs awarded against the Applicant.
Orders
- The matter is removed from the roll for lack of urgency.
- Order relating to review proceedings to be launched by the Applicant is deleted.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO: 2025-034050
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED.
DATE 09/05/2025
SIGNATURE
In the matter between: SKG AFRICA (PTY) LTD Applicant And SPECIAL INVESTIGATING UNIT First Respondent RYDEN INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY CONSULTANTS (PTY) LTD Second Respondent BENAL PROPERTY INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD Third Respondent THE ROYAL PROPERTY TRUST Fourth Respondent SHULA DEVELOPERS (PTY) LTD Fifth Respondent
JUDGMENT
MBONGWE J:
[1] On 26 March 2025 in the Urgent Court I heard an opposed application for interdictory relief.
[2] At the conclusion of the hearing I gave an ex tempore judgment and ordered that the matter was not urgent and that it is removed from the roll.
[3] A request by Counsel for the Applicant that an order be made directing the times for the Applicant to institute a review application in respect of which the interdict was sought be included in the removal order was erroneously entertained and an order, order 2, issued.
[4] A further error, the costs order that was supposed to be in favour of the First Respondent was given in favour of the Applicant.
[5] I have on 09 May 2025, pursuant to correspondence from the First Respondent’s attorneys, had a meeting with, inter alia, Counsel for the parties to explain the errors and advise that the order dated 28 March 2025 will be corrected and aligned with the conclusion reached on 26 March 2025 as follows:
1.1. Order 1 for the removal of the matter from the roll for lack of urgency remains.
1.2. Order 2 relating to review proceedings to be launched by the Applicant is deleted.
1.3. Order 3 is deleted and substituted with the following:
“3. The Applicant is ordered to pay the costs of this application, which costs shall include the costs consequent upon employment of two counsel.”
MPN MBONGWE
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
Appearances:
For the Applicant: Adv A Botha SC; Adv J Pretorius Instructed by: Sims Attorneys For the First Respondent: Adv S Khumalo; Adv NC Nhlapho Instructed by: Noko Maimela Attorneys Date of hearing: 25 & 26 March 2025 Date of Order: 28 March 2025 Date of Revised Judgment: 09 May 2025