Kgentlengrivier Local Municipality v Bertorbrite (Pty) Ltd and Another (UM118/2023) [2023] ZANWHC 66 (2 June 2023)

Kgentlengrivier Local Municipality v Bertorbrite (Pty) Ltd and Another (UM118/2023) [2023] ZANWHC 66 (2 June 2023)

The court found that the applicant failed to establish genuine urgency, as its actions were based on incorrect assumptions and a lack of due diligence. The applicant did not verify whether the sheriff intended to withdraw funds or auction movables imminently, and only acted after receiving information from its bank, which was not substantiated by the sheriff. The urgency was self-created due to the applicant's delay in responding to the judgment and attachments. The requirements of Rule 6(12) for urgency and Rule 45A for a stay of execution were not met, as the applicant did not demonstrate that it would not be afforded substantial redress at a hearing in due course. The application was...

Citation
[2023] ZANWHC 66
Parties
Applicant: Kgetlengrivier Local Municipality; Respondent: Bertorbrite (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: The Sheriff of the High Court, Ventersdorp
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 June 2023
Case Number
UM118/2023
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Urgent Application to Stay Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
Application struck from the urgent roll; applicant ordered to pay wasted costs.
Judges
Khan
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Urgency in Applications, Rule 45a, Section 173 Constitution
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Urgency in Applications Rule 45a Section 173 Constitution

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kgetlengrivier Local Municipality

Applicant

Bertorbrite (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

The Sheriff of the High Court, Ventersdorp

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Urgent Application to Stay Execution Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has established sufficient urgency to justify truncation of court rules and immediate relief.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant will not be afforded substantial redress at a hearing in due course if the stay is not granted.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's urgency is self-created due to its own delay and failure to verify facts.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to establish genuine urgency, as its actions were based on incorrect assumptions and a lack of due diligence. The applicant did not verify whether the sheriff intended to withdraw funds or auction movables imminently, and only acted after receiving information from its bank, which was not substantiated by the sheriff. The urgency was self-created due to the applicant's delay in responding to the judgment and attachments. The requirements of Rule 6(12) for urgency and Rule 45A for a stay of execution were not met, as the applicant did not demonstrate that it would not be afforded substantial redress at a hearing in due course. The application was...

Court Disposition

Application struck from the urgent roll; applicant ordered to pay wasted costs.

Orders

  • The matter is struck from the Urgent Court roll.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the wasted costs.