Urgent Applications – The Wheels of Justice Doesn’t Always Turn Slowly

In the High Court, Rule 6(12), together with legal precedents set by previous judgements of our Superior Courts, determine these requirements. These requirements are that the applicant must explicitly explain by means of affidavit why the matter is urgent, and why he or she would not be able to obtain “substantial redress at a hearing in due course”. Put simply, this means that the Judge or Magistrate must be convinced that the applicant’s rights or interests would not be adequately protected if he or she had to wait and follow the normal procedures and time periods of the court.

A further requirement which has arisen from case law, is that the urgency of the matter must not be self-created. Urgency is self-created when a party has known about the possibility of harm or infringement of his or rights for a long time, but only decides to run to court at the eleventh hour to seek protection. In the matter of Roets N.O. and another v SB Guarantee Company (RF) (Pty) Ltd and others [2022] ZAGPJHC 754, the learned Judge held that an applicant who “sits on its laurels or take its time to bring an urgent application” must provide a full and satisfactory explanation for any delay, which explanation must cover the “full period from when it was realised, or should have been realised, that urgent relief should be obtained”.

Therefore, under circumstances where delayed justice would lead to denied justice, it is important to approach an attorney for advice as soon as you realise that urgent intervention by the courts could be necessary.

The content does not constitute legal advice, are not intended to be a substitute for legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Kindly contact us on info@cklaw.co.za or 021 556 9864 to speak to one of our attorneys.