Minister of Police v Macebo Qwela and Others

The Minister of Police (applicant) approached the court on an urgent basis seeking to stay a warrant of execution issued on 4 March 2025. The warrant arose from a default judgment obtained against the applicant in the Regional Court of Idutywa on 26 June 2024 for R260,000.00. On 11 April 2025, the sheriff attached and inventorised the applicant's movable property, including office furniture, equipment, and two motor vehicles (registration BRG 743 EC and JGC 680 EC). On 10 June 2025, these assets were removed by the sheriff. The applicant only instructed legal representatives on 10 June 2025, the same day as the removal. The applicant claimed that it did not defend the action in the Regional Court because the police docket went missing during refurbishment at Idutywa Police Station. The docket was only found on 20 May 2025, after the default judgment but before the removal of assets. The applicant sought interim relief to stay the warrant of execution, restrain further action, and have the removed assets returned pending finalization of an application to be brought within 15 days.

• Whether the applicant satisfied the requirements for urgent relief under Rule 6(12)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court
• Whether the alleged urgency was self-created by the applicant's delay
• Whether the court should grant relief staying the warrant of execution and ordering return of attached assets
• Whether the applicant's failure to act timeously after becoming aware of the warrant and attachment constituted sufficient explanation for urgent relief

The application was struck from the roll with costs. The order was issued on 12 June 2025, and reasons for judgment were furnished on 8 July 2025 following the applicant's request dated 23 June 2025.

An applicant cannot create its own urgency by simply waiting until normal rules can no longer be applied. Where a party becomes aware or ought reasonably to have been aware of circumstances giving rise to the need for relief, and fails to act timeously without adequate explanation, the urgency is self-created and will not justify departure from normal procedural rules. Rule 6(12)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court must be complied with for urgent relief to be granted. Government departments are held to a higher standard and have a heightened duty to respect the law, fulfil procedural requirements, and act properly when dealing with rights - they cannot be exempted from due process requirements.

The court noted that important dates (such as the date of default judgment, warrant issuance, and attachment) were found only in annexures rather than in the founding affidavit itself, describing this non-disclosure as leaving 'much to be desired.' The court observed that the applicant's concerns about potential prejudice from sale of assets could be addressed through alternative procedural mechanisms, specifically an application for a preferential hearing date to the Judge President or Deputy Judge President through the registrar's office. The court extensively quoted Cameron J's remarks in MEC for Health, Eastern Cape v Kirland Investments regarding government's duty to follow proper procedures, emphasizing that 'Government is not an indigent or bewildered litigant...It is the Constitution's primary agent. It must do right, and it must do it properly.' The judgment also reiterated the constitutional and rule of law imperatives for judges to provide reasons for their decisions, citing Mphahlele v First National Bank and other authorities on judicial accountability and transparency.

This case reinforces the strict approach South African courts take to urgent applications, particularly where urgency is self-created through a party's own delays and failure to act timeously. It emphasizes that government departments are not exempt from procedural requirements and, in fact, are held to a higher standard in respecting the law and following proper procedures. The judgment underscores the importance of compliance with Rule 6(12)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court in urgent applications. It also illustrates the court's commitment to the rule of law principles requiring judicial accountability through provision of reasons for decisions, as mandated by Constitutional Court jurisprudence in cases like Mphahlele v First National Bank.