Mabotwane Security Services CC v Sekhukhune District Municipality and Others (2425/2020) [2020] ZALMPPHC 76 (8 September 2020)

Mabotwane Security Services CC v Sekhukhune District Municipality and Others (2425/2020) [2020] ZALMPPHC 76 (8 September 2020)

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate genuine urgency as required by Rule 6(12)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court. The delay between being notified to vacate the site and launching the application was not reasonably explained, and no attempt at settlement or other justification for the delay was provided. The urgency was self-manufactured, and the applicant could have sought interim relief earlier but failed to do so. The application sought final relief and was not suited for urgent proceedings. Consequently, the application was struck from the urgent roll with costs.

Citation
[2020] ZALMPPHC 76
Parties
Applicant: Mabotwane Security Services CC; Respondent: Sekhukhune District Municipality; Respondent: Mogola Security & Cleaning; Respondent: Tubatse Security Service (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Sesane Projects CC; Respondent: Fetakgomo Tubatse Local Municipality
Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 September 2020
Case Number
2425/2020
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Strike From Urgent Roll
Outcome
Application struck from the urgent court roll with costs.
Judges
MG Phatudi
Legal Topics
Rule 6 12 Urgency, Tender Review, Self Manufactured Urgency, Substantial Redress, Interim Interdict
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Rule 6 12 Urgency Tender Review Self Manufactured Urgency Substantial Redress Interim Interdict

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mabotwane Security Services CC

Applicant

Sekhukhune District Municipality

Respondent

Mogola Security & Cleaning

Respondent

Tubatse Security Service (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Sesane Projects CC

Respondent

Fetakgomo Tubatse Local Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Strike From Urgent Roll

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant demonstrated sufficient urgency to justify hearing the matter on the urgent roll.
  2. 2 Whether the delay between notification and launching the application was reasonably explained.
  3. 3 Whether substantial redress could be afforded at a hearing in due course.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate genuine urgency as required by Rule 6(12)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court. The delay between being notified to vacate the site and launching the application was not reasonably explained, and no attempt at settlement or other justification for the delay was provided. The urgency was self-manufactured, and the applicant could have sought interim relief earlier but failed to do so. The application sought final relief and was not suited for urgent proceedings. Consequently, the application was struck from the urgent roll with costs.

Court Disposition

Application struck from the urgent court roll with costs.

Orders

  • The application is struck from the urgent court roll with costs.