Urgent applications are intended for situations where an applicant cannot obtain substantial redress through the ordinary course of court proceedings. Because they allow litigants to bypass standard procedural timelines, urgent applications are regarded as an extraordinary remedy and are subject to strict requirements.
South African courts have consistently warned against the misuse of urgency. This position was reaffirmed by the High Court of South Africa in the matter of
Dynamic Sisters Trading (Pty) Ltd and Another v Nedbank Ltd (081473/2023) [2023] ZAGPPHC 709 (21 August 2023).
The judgment underscores the importance of properly motivating urgency and serves as a clear warning against self-created urgency.
Rule 6(12) of the Uniform Rules of Court
Urgent applications are regulated by Rule 6(12) of the Uniform Rules of Court. The rule permits a court to dispense with the usual forms and service requirements, but only where the applicant:
-
Explicitly sets out the circumstances that render the matter urgent, and
-
Explains why the matter cannot be addressed through the normal court process
The discretion lies with the court, and urgency is assessed objectively, based on the facts placed before it.
Background to the Dynamic Sisters Case
In Dynamic Sisters Trading (Pty) Ltd and Another v Nedbank Ltd, the respondent, Nedbank Limited, obtained summary judgment against the applicants in January 2023.
As part of the judgment:
-
The applicants’ immovable property was declared specially executable
-
A warrant of execution was issued
-
A sale in execution was scheduled for 22 August 2023
Despite having knowledge of the judgment and enforcement process for several months, the applicants only launched an urgent application on 21 August 2023, one day before the scheduled auction. The relief sought was a stay of the sale in execution, pending the finalisation of a rescission application.
Opposition and Argument on Urgency
Nedbank opposed the urgent application, arguing that:
-
The applicants had been aware of the judgment since at least April 2023
-
The enforcement steps were known well in advance
-
The urgency relied upon was entirely self-created
The applicants contended that the delay was justified because they had been attempting to resolve the matter amicably with Nedbank.
The Court’s Findings
The court rejected the applicants’ explanation and agreed with Nedbank’s submissions. It held that:
-
Once Nedbank made it clear that it intended to proceed with the sale in execution, the applicants should have acted immediately
-
Attempts at negotiation do not excuse delay where enforcement is imminent
-
Urgency cannot be manufactured by waiting until the last moment
The court emphasised the importance of consistency in refusing urgent applications based on self-created urgency, stating that this approach reinforces compliance with court rules and practice directives.
The matter was accordingly struck from the urgent roll for lack of urgency.
Key Legal Principles Confirmed
This judgment reinforces several well-established principles:
-
Urgency is assessed objectively, not subjectively
-
Self-created urgency does not satisfy Rule 6(12)
-
Knowledge of a threat coupled with delay is fatal to urgency
-
Courts will not relax procedural rules to accommodate poor litigation timing
Rule 6(12) exists to prevent injustice where waiting would cause irreparable harm—not to rescue parties from the consequences of inaction.
Practical Lessons for Litigants
The Dynamic Sisters judgment highlights the importance of:
-
Acting immediately when rights or property are threatened
-
Seeking legal advice as soon as enforcement action is anticipated
-
Not assuming that negotiations suspend the need to approach court
-
Properly motivating urgency with clear, factual explanations
Delays can result in the loss of urgency, even where substantive rights may otherwise exist.
Conclusion
Urgent applications play a vital role in South African civil procedure, but they are not a procedural shortcut. Courts will continue to guard against abuse by striking matters from the urgent roll where urgency is self-created or inadequately motivated.
The Dynamic Sisters Trading v Nedbank decision serves as a clear reminder: when urgency arises, delay is often fatal.
Need Urgent Legal Assistance?
At O’Reilly Law Inc, we advise clients on urgent applications, stays of execution, and interim relief. If your rights or assets are under immediate threat, early and decisive legal action is critical.
Contact our litigation team to assess your position before urgency is lost.