Royal AM Football Club (Pty) Ltd v Venter N.O and Others (2025-011702) [2025] ZAGPPHC 131 (5 February 2025)

begin wrapper begin container begin header begin slogan-floater end slogan-floater - About SAFLII About SAFLII - Databases Databases - Search Search - Terms of Use Terms of Use - RSS Feeds RSS Feeds end header begin main begin center # South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria >> 2025 >> [2025] ZAGPPHC 131 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Royal AM Football Club (Pty) Ltd v Venter N.O and Others (2025-011702) [2025] ZAGPPHC 131 (5 February 2025) Royal AM Football Club (Pty) Ltd v Venter N.O and Others (2025-011702) [2025] ZAGPPHC 131 (5 February 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2025_131.html sino date 5 February 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) Case No. 2025-011702 1.       REPORTABLE: NO 2.       OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO 3.       REVISED: NO DATE  5 February 2025 SIGNATURE In the matter between: ROYAL AM FOOTBALL CLUB (PTY) LTD and JACO VENTER N.O (In his capacity as curator bonis of the applicant) THE COMMISSIONER FOR THE SOUTH AFRIAN REVENUE SERVICES THE NATIONAL SOCCER LEAGUE Summary: Urgent Application -Uniform Rule of Court 6(12) -Applicants should set forth explicitly the reasons why the matter should be treated urgent-self -created / subjective perceived urgency does not entitle the applicants to urgent relief- application struck from the roll for lack of urgency. The Sanctity of the Urgent Court has to be preserved for matters that are deservingly, lest the Urgent Court would the flooded with matters that are undeserving, self-created /subjective orientated urgency. JUDGMENT- EX TEMPORE YENDE AJ [1] The Court continues to give its ex-tempore judgment in this matter. [2] Summary. An application is brought in terms of Rule of Court, Rule 6(1), the applicant should set forth explicitly the reasons why the matter is urgent. Self –created urgency does not entitle the applicants to urgent relief. Application struck from the roll for lack of urgency. The Sanctity of the Urgent Court has to be preserved for matters that are deservingly, lest the Urgent Court would the flooded with matters that are undeserving self-created therefore subjectively orientated urgency. [3] This Court has consistently refused urgent applications in cases where the urgency relied-upon was subjective urgency, clearly self-created. Consistency is important in this context, as it informs the public and legal practitioners that rules of Court and Practice Directives can only be ignored at a litigant's peril. Legal certainty is one of the cornerstones of a legal system based on the Rule of Law. [4]   The test for urgency was eloquently formulated in East Rock Trading (PTY) Ltd and Another v Eagle Valley Granite and Another’s [1] where Justice Notshe AJ held that “There import thereof is that the procedure set out in Rule 6(12) is not for taking. An applicant has to set forth explicitly the circumstances which he avers render the matter urgent. More importantly, the applicant must state the reasons why he claims that he cannot be afforded substantial redress at a hearing in due course”. [10] For all of these reasons and submissions advanced by the applicant together with the respondent’s counsel, I am not convinced that the applicant has overcome the threshold prescribed in Rule 6(12) and I am of the firm view that the application ought to be struck from the roll for lack of urgency. [11] The application therefore falls to be struck from the roll and the costs should follow the suit. Order Accordingly, I make the following order: - (1)            The applicant’s urgent application be and is hereby struck from the roll for lack of urgency. (2)   The applicant shall pay the First and Second Respondent’s costs for the urgent application including the costs of two counsel wherein employed on scale C. (3) No cost to the Third Respondent as it has no issue with the costs. J YENDE ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA This judgment was prepared by YENDE AJ. It is handed down electronically by circulation to the parties/their legal representatives by e-mail and uploaded on Caselines electronic platform and by publication of the judgment to the South African Legal Information Institute. The date for hand-down is deemed 5 February 2025. Appearances: Advocate(s) for Applicant : R. MASTENBROEK SC Appearing with : B. BRAUN Instructed by: DBP ATTORNEYS INC Advocate(s) for First Respondent(s) : E. COETZEE SC Appearing with: D. D. SWART Instructed by: VZLR ATTORNEYS Advocate for Second Respondent: C. NAUDE SC Instructed by: MACROBERTS ATTORNEYS Advocate(s) for Third Respondent: A. FRANKLIN SC Appearing with: M. DE BEER Instructed by: WEBBER WENZEL ATTORNEYS Heard: 5 February 2025 Delivered: 5 February 2025 [1] (11/33767) [2011] ZAGPJHC 196 at par 6. sino noindex make_database footer start