Seketso and Others v South African National Civics Organisation and Others (7016/2019) [2024] ZAGPJHC 373 (17 January 2024)

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: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg >> 2024 >> [2024] ZAGPJHC 373 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Seketso and Others v South African National Civics Organisation and Others (7016/2019) [2024] ZAGPJHC 373 (17 January 2024) Seketso and Others v South African National Civics Organisation and Others (7016/2019) [2024] ZAGPJHC 373 (17 January 2024) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2024_373.html sino date 17 January 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO :   7016/2019 DATE :  17-01-2024 1. REPORTABLE:  NO. 2. OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES:  NO. 3. REVISED. In the matter between PACKET SEAKETSO AND OTHERS              First Applicant SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL CIVICS ORGANISATION JOHANNESBURG CITY HALL NEC (“2023 SANCO JHB”)                  Second Applicant And 2023 SANCO DURBAN                               First Respondent RICHARD (HLOPE) MKHUNGO                   Second Respondent CHRIS MALEMETJA                                  Third Respondent LUCKY BALOI                                           Fourth Respondent SKHUMBUZO MPANZA                               Fifth Respondent MIKE SOKO                                              Sixth Respondent BONGIKHAYA QAMA                                  Seventh Respondent SYLVIA MDAKA                                         Eighth Respondent JUDITH TSHABALA                                   Ninth Respondent ISAAC PLAATJIE                                      Tenth Respondent THE 2023 NIC                                          Eleventh Respondent ALL OTHER PERSONS WHOSE DETAILS ARE UNKNOWN, PURPORTEDLY ELECTED UNDER THE AMBIT AND AUSPICES OF THE CONFERENCE OF 24TH AND 25TH NOVEMBER 2023                                     Twelfth Respondent ALL OTHER PERSONS PURPORTEDLY ACTING IN TERMS OF THE AMBIT AND AUSPICES OF SANCO ALEXANDER AND DURBAN                                          Thirteenth Respondent JUDGMENT WEPENER, J : The application before me is one for reconsideration of an order issued by this Court in November 2023. However, more important is that the matter is brought in the urgent court. The main argument was that because of the provisions of rule 6(12)(c) of the Rules of Court, it may be set down in the urgent court.  That rule provides, 6(12)(c): “ A person against whom an order was granted in such person’s absence in the urgent application, may, by notice set down the matter for reconsideration of the order.” It is argued that because of that provision, a matter that was granted in the urgent court, may be brought back for reconsideration in the urgent court.  I do not agree.  A party who makes use of the provisions of the Rules of Court, to bring a matter to the urgent court must, in its own right, make a case while the reconsideration should be heard urgently. I agree with the judgment of Wilson J, recently published in Volvo Financial Services Southern Africa (Pty) Limited with Adamas Tkolose Trading CC 2023 ZAGP JHC 486 in which he said that: “ Urgency is determined not by the nature of the claim brought, but by the circumstances in which the application seeks its adjudication.” The remaining arguments were of a general nature regarding the rights of the applicants vis a vis the respondents and which would be applicable in a matter whether it is heard urgently or otherwise. I find that the matter lacks sufficient urgency to be heard out of the normal course in which applications are heard in this Division. There is no reason why the applicants cannot get redress in due course and have the issues determined.  In any event, the matter contains lengthy contentions and disputes of facts that cannot be properly determined on papers before me, especially in an urgent application, The urgent application address presented by the applicants in this matter, which took the most part of an hour, underlines the very fact that it is not a matter that can be decided without careful consideration of the many issues that are raised on the papers. I find that the matter should not have been brought in the urgent court today, whether by the first or the second applicant which makes no difference. In the circumstances I strike the matter off the roll and I order that the first and second applicants are to pay the respondents costs jointly and severely. WEPENER, J JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT DATE :  ………………. sino noindex make_database footer start