Tsentsa Construction (Pty) Ltd v Impala Platinum Mine - Rustenburg (UM 149/23) [2023] ZANWHC 149 (24 August 2023)

Tsentsa Construction (Pty) Ltd v Impala Platinum Mine - Rustenburg (UM 149/23) [2023] ZANWHC 149 (24 August 2023)

The court found that the applicant failed to meet the requirements for urgency under Rule 6(12). The applicant did not provide sufficient reasons why substantial redress could not be afforded at a hearing in due course. The timeline of events indicated that the applicant was slow to act and did not adequately explain the delay or demonstrate irreparable harm that could not be remedied by the normal court process. The grounds advanced for urgency were inadequate, and the application was accordingly struck from the roll. Costs were awarded against the applicant as there was no reason to depart from the usual cost order.

Citation
[2023] ZANWHC 149
Parties
Applicant: Tsentsa Construction (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Impala Platinum Mine - Rustenburg
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 August 2023
Case Number
UM 149/23
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application Struck From Roll for Lack of Urgency
Outcome
Application struck from the roll for lack of urgency; costs awarded against the applicant.
Judges
Reddy
Legal Topics
Rule 6 Urgent Applications, Contractual Dispute, Substantial Redress, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Rule 6 Urgent Applications Contractual Dispute Substantial Redress Costs Order

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tsentsa Construction (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Impala Platinum Mine - Rustenburg

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application Struck From Roll 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 would be unable to secure substantial redress in due course if the matter is not heard urgently.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant provided sufficient grounds for urgency.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to meet the requirements for urgency under Rule 6(12). The applicant did not provide sufficient reasons why substantial redress could not be afforded at a hearing in due course. The timeline of events indicated that the applicant was slow to act and did not adequately explain the delay or demonstrate irreparable harm that could not be remedied by the normal court process. The grounds advanced for urgency were inadequate, and the application was accordingly struck from the roll. Costs were awarded against the applicant as there was no reason to depart from the usual cost order.

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 costs.