-
NOT REPORTABLE
IN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, 
JOHANNESBURG (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA)

CASE NO: 61907/09
DATE: 04/10/2010

In the matter between:

and

JUDGMENT

GOODEY AJ

[1]     INTRODUCTION

[2]     BACKGROUND / URGENCY

2005(2) SA272T is to be kept in mind:

(my underlining); And
MAJAKE v Commissioner for Gender Equality and Others 2010(1)SA87(GSJ) where the possible violation of a constitutionally guaranteed right was an important consideration in the court finding that a matter was urgent; I have heard the matter.

[3]     THE LAW

(See: Oosthuizen v Mijs 2009(6)SA266(W) at 267)

Reconsideration may involve a deletion of the order, either in whole or in part, or the engraftment of additions thereto. (At 486I-487A/B.) The framers of Rule 6(12)(c) have not sought to delineate the factors which might legitimately be taken into reckoning in determining whether any particular order falls to be reconsidered. What is plain is that a wide discretion is intended. Factors relating to the reasons for the absence of the aggrieved party, the nature of the order granted and the period during which it has remained operative will invariably fall to be considered in H determining whether a discretion should be exercised in favour of the aggrieved party. So, too, will questions relating to whether an imbalance, oppression or injustice has resulted and, if so, the nature and extent thereof, and whether redress can be attained by virtue of the existence of other or alternative remedies. The convenience of the protagonists must inevitably enter the equation. These factors are by no means exhaustive. Each case will turn on its facts and the peculiarities inherent therein. (At 487A/B-D.)
Although no hard and fast rule need be laid down, it seems desirable that a party seeking to invoke Rule 6(12)(c) ought in an affidavit to detail the form of I reconsideration required and the circumstances upon which it is based. (At 487D-D/E.)"
[See: The head note to ISDN SOLUTIONS (PTY) LTD v CSDN SOLUTIONS CC AND OTHERS 1996 (4) SA 484 (W)]

[4]     THE GIST OF RESPONDENTS' ARGUMENT
(4.1)   Paragraph 9 of the heads of argument reads as follows:

"Under the circumstances the pretences of urgency and the lack of factual allegations contained in paragraph 6 supporting what are no more than conclusions are indicative hereof. This is furthermore illustrated by the fact that notwithstanding this having been pointed out in the answering affidavit the Respondents have to date hereof not revealed one single bank account or one single amount of money which has been "frozen"."
(5.2)   Paragraph 7 reads as follows:

[6]      CONCLUTION

"1.      Die bevel op 30 Augustus 2010 word soos volg gewysig :-
1.1    Paragrawe 3.2.1 en 3.2.2 daarvan word met die volgende vervang :-

noemenswaardige bates (synde die bates waarop beslag gele is en enige ander bate met 'n waarde van meer as R80 000,00) wat aan hulle behoort te verkoop, vervreem of beswaar sonder die vooraf-verkryde skriftelike toestemming van die Applikante, welke toestemming nie onredelik weerhou sal word nie."

hulle behoort hulle redelike :-

3.2.2.1       lewens- (wat insluit kos, klere, vervoer, onthaal, ens);

1.2     Die verwysing in paragraaf 10 tot "die bevel in 11 hierbo" gewysig word na "die bevel in 9 hierbo".
2.       Dat die koste van die heroorweging van die bevel gereserveer word."

GOODEY AJ