IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION)

In the matter between: 
INDAWO (CAPE) (PTY) LTD 
and
SANRAL

JUDGMENT

"The application is struck from the roll and the applicant is ordered to pay the respondent's costs of today."

The matter came before me again during the course of this week in Third Division pursuant to a notice of set-down filed by applicant on 23 October 2008.    The notice of set-down was
accompanied by a supplementary affidavit of applicant dealing with the aspect of urgency, as well as applicant's heads of argument.

Respondent filed what was termed a preliminary answering affidavit in which the history of the matter is set out and in which It is contended that the latest set-down of the application is a nullity, with the request that the application be dismissed with costs on the attorney and client scale.

As this judgment is given on a Friday, the last day of this week's Third Division roll, I will only furnish brief reasons for the order which I intend to make.

"The judge who deals with the matter which is alleged to be urgent or semi-urgent to some degree wiU decide whether it is urgent at all, and if it is urgent, whether it is urgent or semi-urgent. If it is held not to be urgent at all, the matter will have to be set down on the continuous roll in the usual way."

As I have mentioned previousfy, the only other route available for applicant in the circumstances would have been to utilise rule 6(6) by applying for leave to renew the application on an urgent basis, i.e. on the same papers supplemented by such further affidavits as the case may require.

In the result the following order is made;-