South Africa Case Law

Sibiya v Old Mutual Life Assurance (SA) Ltd and Others (Ex Tempore) (025033/2025), Ex parte

Sibiya v Old Mutual Life Assurance (SA) Ltd and Others (Ex Tempore) (025033/2025), Ex parte [2025] ZAGPPHC 259 (13 March 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

025033/2025

Judge

Yende

The High Court struck an ex parte urgent application from the roll for lack of urgency, finding the claimed urgency was self-created and no substantial redress test was met.

• Rule 6 12 Urgency
• Condonation Of Non Compliance
• Striking Off For Lack Of Urgency
• Urgency
• Rule-6-12
• Civil-procedure

Matthys v Minister of Defence and Military Veterans (Ex tempore) (2025-019481)

Matthys v Minister of Defence and Military Veterans (Ex tempore) (2025-019481) [2025] ZAGPPHC 269 (26 February 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2025-019481

Judge

Yende

The court found that the applicant had met the threshold for urgency under Rule 6(12) due to the immediate risk to health and safety posed by the instruction to occupy a building that is severely damaged and non-compliant with the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The respondent failed to provide credible evidence that the building was safe or habitable. The applicant's constitutional rights to dignity, life, privacy, and a healthy working environment were at risk of being infringed. The court condoned the procedural non-compliance in the interest of justice and granted interim relief to pr…

Source excerpt

• Rule 6 12 Urgency
• Occupational Health And Safety Act
• Interdict
• Condonation Of Non Compliance
• Constitutional Right To Dignity
• Interim Relief

Khan v Khan (Ex tempore) (021816/2025)

Khan v Khan (Ex tempore) (021816/2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 256 (24 February 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

021816/2025

Judge

Yende

The court found that the applicant failed to meet the threshold for urgency as required by Rule 6(12). The urgency relied upon was self-created and not objectively justified. The applicant did not provide sufficient reasons to demonstrate that substantial redress could not be obtained at a hearing in due course. Consistency in applying the rules of court is essential for legal certainty. As the requirements for urgent relief were not satisfied, the application was struck off the roll for lack of urgency.

Source excerpt

• Rule 6 12 Urgency
• Condonation
• Service And Form Requirements
• Substantial Redress
• Self Created Urgency

Mining Affected Communities United In Action v MEC for Community Safety and Transport Management and Others (B4429/2024)

Mining Affected Communities United In Action v MEC for Community Safety and Transport Management and Others (B4429/2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1378 (20 December 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

B4429/2024

Judge

NGM Mazibuko

The High Court found the urgent application properly enrolled but dismissed it, holding the applicants had not shown a legal duty on respondents to supply food to trapped miners.

• Rule 6 12 Urgency
• Section 27 Right To Food
• Section 38 Constitutional Remedy
• Humanitarian Aid Access
• Urgent-applications
• Humanitarian-aid

Snyman v Phihorah Foods (Pty) Ltd and Others (10072/2024)

Snyman v Phihorah Foods (Pty) Ltd and Others (10072/2024) [2024] ZALMPPHC 139 (8 October 2024)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

10072/2024

Judge

N Gaisa

The High Court struck an urgent application from the roll after finding the applicant delayed too long and failed to show why ordinary proceedings would not suffice.

• Rule 6 12 Urgency
• Striking From Urgent Roll
• Specific Performance
• Delay In Application
• Rule-6-12-urgency
• Urgent-application

Educor Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others v Director-General of Higher Education and Another (043233/2024)

Educor Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others v Director-General of Higher Education and Another (043233/2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 556 (20 May 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

043233/2024

Judge

N P Mali

The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate urgency as required by Rule 6(12). The cancellation decision was taken on 31 July 2023, and the applicants did not challenge it timeously or at all. The subsequent removal from the register on 17 March 2024 was a procedural step perfecting the earlier decision and did not have independent practical effect. The applicants did not provide reasons why substantial redress could not be afforded in the ordinary course, and the alleged harm to learners was not substantiated, as they were given time until the end of the academic year. The cour…

Source excerpt

• Legality Review
• Urgent Interdict
• Higher Education Act
• Just Administrative Action
• Rule 6 12 Urgency

Capital Holdings Limited and Another v Mail & Guardian Media Limited and Others (005491/2024), Re

Capital Holdings Limited and Another v Mail & Guardian Media Limited and Others (005491/2024), Re [2024] ZAGPJHC 202 (28 February 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

005491/2024

Judge

M A Makume

The court found that the application lacked urgency as the allegedly defamatory articles had already been in the public domain for several weeks and were published by other media outlets not joined in the proceedings. The applicants failed to demonstrate that they could not obtain substantial redress through alternative remedies, such as a damages claim or referral to the Press Council. The matter involved complex and novel legal issues, including constitutional questions of freedom of expression, which are not suitable for determination in the urgent court. The court admitted MMA and CFE as…

Source excerpt

• Freedom Of Expression
• Defamation
• Urgent Interdict
• Press Council Remedy
• Rule 6 12 Urgency

Arcfyre International (Pty) Ltd and Others v Govender and Another (2023-098452)

Arcfyre International (Pty) Ltd and Others v Govender and Another (2023-098452) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1243 (31 October 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023-098452

Judge

Adams

An urgent restraint-of-trade and confidentiality application was struck from the roll for lack of urgency after the court found no protectable interest shown.

• Restraint Of Trade
• Urgent Interdict
• Confidential Information
• Unlawful Competition
• Rule 6 12 Urgency
• Restraint-of-trade

Chung-Fung (Pty) Ltd and Another v Mayfair Residents Association and Others (2023/080436)

Chung-Fung (Pty) Ltd and Another v Mayfair Residents Association and Others (2023/080436) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1162 (13 October 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/080436

Judge

A W Pullinger

The court found that the applicants had established the absence of substantive redress in due course, justifying urgent relief. The rezoning of Erf [...] under Amendment Scheme 20-01-2697 rendered the previous interdict against parking use otiose, as the use is now lawful under the operative land use scheme. The court held that it does not have the power to suspend the operation of a promulgated amendment scheme absent a constitutional challenge. The Residents' conditional counter-application for an interim interdict was dismissed, as lawful exercise of a right cannot be interdicted. Costs we…

Source excerpt

• Spatial Planning And Land Use Management Act
• Declaratory Relief
• Interim Interdict
• Municipal Planning
• Self Created Urgency
• Rule 6 12 Urgency

C.E.B v C.T.W.B and Others (2021/7796)

C.E.B v C.T.W.B and Others (2021/7796) [2023] ZAGPJHC 971 (30 August 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2021/7796

Judge

Moorcroft

The High Court struck an urgent anti-dissipation application from the roll, finding the applicant delayed too long after learning the relevant facts.

• Rule 6 12 Urgency
• Anti Dissipation Interdict
• Accrual System Divorce
• Trust Retention Of Sale Proceeds
• Rule-6-12-urgency
• Anti-dissipation-interdict