Tsengwa v Exxaro Resources Limited (2024/148733) [2025] ZAGPPHC 82 (3 February 2025)

Tsengwa v Exxaro Resources Limited (2024/148733) [2025] ZAGPPHC 82 (3 February 2025)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay between her suspension and the issuing of the urgent application, rendering the urgency self-created. Furthermore, the applicant did not demonstrate in her founding affidavit what harm she would suffer if the matter was not heard urgently. The alleged damage to the company could not be equated to personal harm to the applicant. As the applicant did not make out a case for urgent relief, the application did not meet the requirements of Rule 6(12) and was struck from the roll for lack of urgency.

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 82
Parties
Applicant: Dr. Nombasa Tsengwa; Respondent: Exxaro Resources Limited
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 February 2025
Case Number
2024/148733
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Struck Off for Lack of Urgency
Outcome
Application struck off the roll for lack of urgency with costs, including costs of two counsels on scale C.
Judges
MP Kumalo
Legal Topics
Urgent Application, Precautionary Suspension, Board Resolution Challenge, Substantial Redress, Rule 6 12
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Urgent Application Precautionary Suspension Board Resolution Challenge Substantial Redress Rule 6 12

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr. Nombasa Tsengwa

Applicant

Exxaro Resources Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Struck Off for Lack of Urgency

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application qualifies to be heard as urgent under Rule 6(12).
  2. 2 Whether the applicant will not be afforded substantial redress at a hearing in due course.
  3. 3 Whether the urgency is self-created by the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay between her suspension and the issuing of the urgent application, rendering the urgency self-created. Furthermore, the applicant did not demonstrate in her founding affidavit what harm she would suffer if the matter was not heard urgently. The alleged damage to the company could not be equated to personal harm to the applicant. As the applicant did not make out a case for urgent relief, the application did not meet the requirements of Rule 6(12) and was struck from the roll for lack of urgency.

Court Disposition

Application struck off the roll for lack of urgency with costs, including costs of two counsels on scale C.

Orders

  • The matter is struck off the roll for lack of urgency.
  • The applicant is to pay the costs of this application, including the costs of two counsels on scale C.