SS&G Project Finance Solutions (Pty) Ltd v Gibb (Pty) Ltd and Others (9982/2015) [2015] ZAGPJHC 334 (25 September 2015)

SS&G Project Finance Solutions (Pty) Ltd v Gibb (Pty) Ltd and Others (9982/2015) [2015] ZAGPJHC 334 (25 September 2015)

The court found that the applicant failed to establish sufficient urgency to justify the extensive relief sought. The disputes between the parties had been ongoing for over a year, and the applicant did not act promptly when it became aware of the issues. The relief sought against government departments was of a mandatory nature and could not be granted on an urgent basis. The court held that the applicant could pursue its remedies through a claim for damages in due course. Accordingly, the application was struck from the roll for lack of urgency, and the applicant was ordered to pay the wasted costs of one set of senior counsel for each party.

Citation
[2015] ZAGPJHC 334
Parties
Applicant: SS&G Project Finance Solutions (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Gibb (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Rand Water Board; Respondent: Emfuleni Local Municipality; Respondent: Minister of Water and Sanitation; Respondent: Minister of Finance; Respondent: Minister of Economic Development
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 September 2015
Case Number
9982/2015
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interim Relief
Outcome
Application struck from the roll for lack of urgency. Costs awarded against the applicant.
Judges
M Victor
Legal Topics
Interdict, Consultancy Agreement, Urgency, Mandamus, Joint Venture Dispute
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Interdict Consultancy Agreement Urgency Mandamus Joint Venture Dispute

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SS&G Project Finance Solutions (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Gibb (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Rand Water Board

Respondent

Emfuleni Local Municipality

Respondent

Minister of Water and Sanitation

Respondent

Minister of Finance

Respondent

Minister of Economic Development

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interim Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for urgent relief to interdict the implementation of the consultancy services agreement is justified.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has established sufficient urgency to warrant the intervention of the court.
  3. 3 Whether the relief sought against government departments can be granted on an urgent basis.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to establish sufficient urgency to justify the extensive relief sought. The disputes between the parties had been ongoing for over a year, and the applicant did not act promptly when it became aware of the issues. The relief sought against government departments was of a mandatory nature and could not be granted on an urgent basis. The court held that the applicant could pursue its remedies through a claim for damages in due course. Accordingly, the application was struck from the roll for lack of urgency, and the applicant was ordered to pay the wasted costs of one set of senior counsel for each party.

Court Disposition

Application struck from the roll for lack of urgency. Costs awarded against the applicant.

Orders

  • The application is struck from the roll for lack of urgency.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the wasted costs of one set of senior counsel for each party.