KC Secures Decisive Victory in Urgent High Court Application

In late 2025, Ka-Mbonane Cooper attorneys Natasha Gardner and Nicholas du Toit successfully represented the Emalahleni Local Municipality in an urgent application before the Mpumalanga Division of the High Court. The matter dealt with the enforcement of court orders, the proper use of urgent court procedures, and the applicant’s legally unsound claim of set-off.

The application arose after Ingorex (Pty) Ltd sought to urgently suspend the execution of a writ issued by the Sheriff, Witbank. The writ related to taxed legal costs owed to the Municipality following earlier litigation in which Ingorex had been unsuccessful. Despite the existence of a final, taxed, and payable costs order in favour of the Municipality, the applicant attempted to prevent execution by relying on its own untaxed bill of costs and alleged urgency.

Central to the applicant’s case was the argument that execution should be halted pending the taxation of its costs, and that the execution process would result in irreparable harm to its business operations. The Court was asked to exercise its discretion under Rule 45A of the Uniform Rules of Court to suspend execution, and to do so on an urgent basis.

Ka-Mbonane Cooper opposed the application, contending that the urgency was self-created, that the applicant had delayed for months before taking any steps to tax its costs, and that the application amounted to an abuse of the urgent court process. It was further argued that untaxed costs do not constitute a liquidated debt and cannot justify set-off or suspension of execution, particularly where a lawful and enforceable costs order exists.

In a comprehensive and clear judgment delivered on 24 December 2025, Acting Judge JT Leso dismissed the application in its entirety. The Court held that the matter was not urgent, noting that the applicant’s own inaction and delay were the true cause of the urgency relied upon. The judgment reaffirmed the principle that litigants cannot create urgency through their own conduct and then seek indulgence from the court.

Even if urgency had been established, the Court found that the application would still fail on the merits. The judgment confirmed that Rule 45A does not provide a mechanism for avoiding payment of an admitted, taxed debt, and that set off cannot operate where the alleged counterclaim is unliquidated and not yet due. The Court further noted that any concerns regarding the attachment of assets could be adequately addressed through established legal remedies.

Significantly, the Court described the application as procedurally abusive and devoid of merit and ordered the applicant to pay the costs of the application on an attorney-and-client scale, including the costs of counsel. These punitive costs order reflects the Court’s disapproval of the manner in which the urgent application was pursued.

The judgment provides important guidance on urgent litigation, the enforcement of court orders, and the high threshold required to justify judicial interference with execution proceedings. It serves as a reminder that the courts will protect the integrity of their processes and will not permit litigants to delay compliance with lawful orders through unmeritorious applications.

Ka-Mbonane Cooper is proud of the outcome achieved in this matter and of the clarity it brings to an area of practice that frequently arises in litigation.