Understanding Urgent Applications in South African High Court Divisions

Urgent applications are a distinct and critical mechanism within South African civil procedure, governed principally by Rule 6(12) of the Uniform Rules of Court. This rule empowers a court or a judge in chambers, in cases of urgency, to dispense with the ordinary forms and service required under the rules, allowing a matter to be heard at a time and in a manner dictated by the circumstances.

Rule 6(12) and Its Parameters

Rule 6(12)(a) allows for deviation from standard procedures in urgent cases. However, such deviations must still comply with the rules as far as is practicable. An applicant must expressly seek condonation for any non-compliance and must demonstrate that the matter is indeed urgent, failing which the court may decline to hear the matter urgently, although the application itself remains unaffected (Republikeinse Publikasies (Edms) Bpk v Afrikaanse Pers Publikasies (Edms) Bpk 1972 (1) SA 773 (A)).

The application must include, in the notice of motion, a prayer for urgency under Rule 6(12), and the founding affidavit must contain a separate section explicitly setting out the grounds for urgency (Nelson Mandela Metropolitan Municipality v Greyvenouw CC 2004 (2) SA 81 (SE)).

Degrees of Urgency

There are varying degrees of urgency. Some matters may be so extreme that they require immediate, even late-night or weekend hearings, sometimes without the benefit of written submissions (Luna Meubel Vervaardigers (Edms) Bpk v Makin’s Furniture Manufacturers 1977 (4) SA 135 (W)). Other cases may allow for the usual notice periods to be shortened but still occur during ordinary court hours (IL & B Marcow Caterers (Pty) Ltd v Greatermans SA Ltd 1981 (4) SA 108 (C)).

In each case, the applicant must demonstrate an absence of substantial redress in due course if the application is not heard urgently. This is not equivalent to showing irreparable harm (East Rock Trading 7 (Pty) Ltd v Eagle Valley Granite (Pty) Ltd 2012 JOL 28244 (GSJ)).

Self-Created Urgency and Delay

Applicants must act with expedition. An unjustified delay in bringing an urgent application may result in the matter being struck from the roll for lack of urgency, particularly if the urgency is self-created (IL & B Marcow Caterers, supra). However, ongoing infringement of rights may justify urgency despite some delay (Lubambo v Presbyterian Church of Africa 1994 (3) SA 241 (SE)).

Procedural Considerations and Judicial Discretion

The court retains discretion on whether to hear a matter urgently. Factors that influence this decision include:

• The applicant’s explanation for urgency;

• Whether the respondent can fairly respond in the time available;

• Prejudice to the respondent and to the administration of justice;

• The merits of the applicant’s case;

• The applicant’s conduct, including delay or self-created urgency (East Rock Trading, supra).

Urgency does not override foundational legal requirements such as standing or jurisdiction (Kayamandi Town Committee v Mkhwaso 1991 (2) SA 630 (C)). Nor can it be used to bypass effective service, which remains a legal duty (Transnet t/a Spoornet v Informal Settlers of Good Hope 2001 (4) All SA 516 (W)).

Deviation from Rules and Practice Directions

In extreme cases, the application may proceed without prior service or notice to the Registrar, but every deviation from the rules must be substantiated. Courts have held that even urgent matters should be properly indexed and paginated (Quick Drink Co (Pty) Ltd v Medicines Control Council 2003 JOL 12048 (T)).

Judge Southwood has issued practice directions highlighting these principles, reiterating that urgency must be genuine and properly motivated.

Conclusion

Urgent applications remain a powerful procedural tool, but they are not to be abused. Practitioners must ensure strict compliance with Rule 6(12) requirements and must justify any deviation from standard procedures. Failure to do so may result in the matter not being enrolled as urgent, although the application itself remains intact and can proceed in the ordinary course.

F.A. Stockley

BCom Law; LLB

Partner at Le Roux Vivier Attorneys