S.M.P v P.M and Another (084568/2023) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1972 (27 November 2023)

S.M.P v P.M and Another (084568/2023) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1972 (27 November 2023)

The court held that the only issue before it was whether the first respondent's application for reconsideration of Pistorius J's interim interdict order was urgent and should be heard by the urgent court. The first respondent, as the actual applicant, bore the duty to establish urgency in terms of Rule 6(12) of the Uniform Rules of Court. She failed to provide any substantive reasons or circumstances justifying urgency, both in her affidavits and heads of argument, instead focusing on attacking the applicant's previous application. The court found that the first respondent did not discharge the burden of establishing urgency, and therefore her application for reconsideration could not be...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 1972
Parties
Applicant: S[...] M[...] P[...]; Respondent: P[...] M[...]; Respondent: First Rand Bank
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 November 2023
Case Number
084568/2023
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Reconsideration of Interim Interdict Order; Determination of Urgency
Outcome
First respondent's application for reconsideration is struck from the roll for want of urgency; first respondent to pay wasted costs.
Judges
C Marumoagae
Legal Topics
Urgency in Motion Proceedings, Interim Interdict, Reconsideration of Order, Variation or Rescission of Judgment
Civil Procedure Family and Children Urgency in Motion Proceedings Interim Interdict Reconsideration of Order Variation or Rescission of Judgment

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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S[...] M[...] P[...]

Applicant

P[...] M[...]

Respondent

First Rand Bank

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Reconsideration of Interim Interdict Order; Determination of Urgency

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first respondent's application for reconsideration of Pistorius J's interim interdict order is urgent and should be heard by the urgent court.
  2. 2 Whether the first respondent discharged the duty to establish urgency for her reconsideration application.
  3. 3 Whether supplementary affidavits filed without leave should be considered.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the only issue before it was whether the first respondent's application for reconsideration of Pistorius J's interim interdict order was urgent and should be heard by the urgent court. The first respondent, as the actual applicant, bore the duty to establish urgency in terms of Rule 6(12) of the Uniform Rules of Court. She failed to provide any substantive reasons or circumstances justifying urgency, both in her affidavits and heads of argument, instead focusing on attacking the applicant's previous application. The court found that the first respondent did not discharge the burden of establishing urgency, and therefore her application for reconsideration could not be...

Court Disposition

First respondent's application for reconsideration is struck from the roll for want of urgency; first respondent to pay wasted costs.

Orders

  • The first respondent’s application for the reconsideration of Pistorius J’s order is struck off the roll for want of urgency.
  • The applicant’s application is not before this court.