Herman v Minister of Justice And Constitutional Development and Another (61919/13) [2013] ZAGPPHC 454 (27 September 2013)

Herman v Minister of Justice And Constitutional Development and Another (61919/13) [2013] ZAGPPHC 454 (27 September 2013)

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient urgency to warrant interim relief. The delay of approximately three months before approaching the urgent court undermined any claim to urgency. The applicant's argument that he and his employees would lose employment if the suspension was not granted was found to be flawed, as it ignored the interests of the second respondent, who also has employment responsibilities. The court held that the applicant could seek redress through the pending review and Equality Court proceedings and that the matter was no longer urgent. Accordingly, the application was struck off the roll with costs.

Citation
[2013] ZAGPPHC 454
Parties
Applicant: Deon-John Herman; Respondent: Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development; Respondent: Nkwadi Simon Maremane
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 September 2013
Case Number
61919/13
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Interim Relief
Outcome
Application struck off the roll with costs.
Judges
BAQWA
Legal Topics
Urgency, Interim Relief, Striking Off Roll
Civil Procedure Urgency Interim Relief Striking Off Roll

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Deon-John Herman

Applicant

Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development

Respondent

Nkwadi Simon Maremane

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Interim Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for suspension of the second respondent's appointment is urgent and warrants interim relief.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has demonstrated sufficient urgency to justify approaching the urgent court.
  3. 3 Whether the delay in bringing the application erodes any claim to urgency.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient urgency to warrant interim relief. The delay of approximately three months before approaching the urgent court undermined any claim to urgency. The applicant's argument that he and his employees would lose employment if the suspension was not granted was found to be flawed, as it ignored the interests of the second respondent, who also has employment responsibilities. The court held that the applicant could seek redress through the pending review and Equality Court proceedings and that the matter was no longer urgent. Accordingly, the application was struck off the roll with costs.

Court Disposition

Application struck off the roll with costs.

Orders

  • The application is struck off the roll with costs.