Stoltz and Others v Rustenberg Local Municipality (UM29/2020) [2020] ZANWHC 46 (28 May 2020)

Stoltz and Others v Rustenberg Local Municipality (UM29/2020) [2020] ZANWHC 46 (28 May 2020)

The court found that the applicants failed to act with the necessary urgency after the electricity supply was terminated on 15 January 2020, waiting approximately six weeks before bringing the application. The urgency arose at the time of disconnection, and the applicants should have approached the court immediately. Furthermore, the applicants' conduct in serving the application with only two days for the respondent to answer, followed by their own request for a postponement to file a replying affidavit, was inconsistent with the claim of urgency and constituted an abuse of process. Consequently, the matter was struck off the roll for lack of urgency.

Citation
[2020] ZANWHC 46
Parties
Applicant: Gabriel Coenraad Daniel Stoltz; Applicant: Nwafor Samuel Ofobuike; Applicant: Akililu Shamebo Anbasse; Respondent: Rustenburg Local Municipality
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 May 2020
Case Number
UM29/2020
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application Struck Off the Roll for Lack of Urgency
Outcome
Application struck off the roll for lack of urgency.
Judges
J T Djaje
Legal Topics
Urgent Interdict, Electricity Supply Disconnection, Abuse of Process
Civil Procedure Land and Property Urgent Interdict Electricity Supply Disconnection Abuse of Process

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gabriel Coenraad Daniel Stoltz

Applicant

Nwafor Samuel Ofobuike

Applicant

Akililu Shamebo Anbasse

Applicant

Rustenburg Local Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application Struck Off the Roll for Lack of Urgency

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for urgent relief to restore electricity supply was truly urgent.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants abused the court process by delaying the institution of proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants were entitled to have their application heard on an urgent basis.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to act with the necessary urgency after the electricity supply was terminated on 15 January 2020, waiting approximately six weeks before bringing the application. The urgency arose at the time of disconnection, and the applicants should have approached the court immediately. Furthermore, the applicants' conduct in serving the application with only two days for the respondent to answer, followed by their own request for a postponement to file a replying affidavit, was inconsistent with the claim of urgency and constituted an abuse of process. Consequently, the matter was struck off the roll for lack of urgency.

Court Disposition

Application struck off the roll for lack of urgency.

Orders

  • The application is struck off the roll due to lack of urgency.