Urgent Applications: When the High Court Will Hear You Out of Order

Something is about to happen that will cause you serious harm — and it is going to happen before any ordinary court process could respond. A business partner is about to transfer company assets to themselves. A landlord is attempting an unlawful eviction. A creditor is threatening to execute on an attachment you are entitled to dispute. You need the court to intervene now. The question is whether what you are facing actually qualifies for urgent treatment — and what happens if it doesn't.

The High Court operates on a normal roll, with matters set down for hearing weeks or months in advance. The urgent roll exists to accommodate situations where that timeline would cause harm that cannot be undone. But access to the urgent roll is not automatic. The court must be persuaded that the matter genuinely qualifies — and that threshold is higher than most people expect when they first call us in a panic.

What urgency actually requires

Rule 6(12) of the Uniform Rules of Court governs urgent applications. The applicant must satisfy the court that they will not obtain substantial redress at a hearing in due course — in other words, that waiting for a normal hearing date will cause harm that cannot adequately be compensated by money or reversed after the fact. This is the irreparable harm requirement, and it is applied strictly.

The application must also show that the urgency was not self-created. A party who has known about a problem for weeks and approached the court at the last moment is not genuinely urgent — they are attempting to use the urgent roll as a substitute for proper planning. Courts are unimpressed by this and will say so. An application found to be manufactured is struck from the urgent roll, the applicant must return to the ordinary roll, and they pay the respondent's wasted costs.

Beyond urgency, the applicant must establish the same requirements as any interdict: a prima facie right, a reasonable apprehension of imminent harm, that the balance of convenience favours granting the interdict rather than refusing it, and that there is no other adequate remedy. All four elements must be present, though they are assessed on the probabilities at the interim stage rather than on final proof.

Ex parte orders and full disclosure

In the most urgent situations, a court may grant an order ex parte — without the other party being notified or present. This is appropriate where giving notice would defeat the entire purpose of the relief: for example, where a party intends to dissipate assets the moment they receive papers, or where a prohibited act would be completed before the respondent could be called to answer. Ex parte orders are powerful precisely because they operate without warning, but that power comes with a strict obligation of full and frank disclosure. The applicant must place before the court every fact a judge would want to know — including facts that weigh against granting the relief. Concealing material information risks having the order set aside on the return date.

An ex parte urgent interdict is always temporary. The court will set a return date on which the respondent appears to oppose or confirm the order. The full merits are argued then. If the respondent successfully opposes, the order falls away and costs consequences follow.

Breaching a court order

If an interdict is granted and the respondent ignores it, that is contempt of court. Contempt proceedings can result in imprisonment, fines, or both. Courts treat deliberate defiance of their orders seriously — and the sequenced approach of interdict first, contempt proceedings if ignored, is a well-established enforcement mechanism in South African practice.

Urgent applications are the right tool for genuinely urgent situations. They are not a shortcut for matters that could have been brought earlier. If you are in a situation that is moving quickly and causing real harm, the sooner you get to us the better — both because urgency is freshest closest to the triggering event, and because the evidence trail is clearest then too.

This article is part of our Commercial Litigation & Dispute Resolution practice. If you are dealing with this situation, speak to one of our directors directly.

Disclaimer: This article is general information, not legal advice. The law is stated as at the date of first publication and may since have changed. Reading it does not create an attorney–client relationship. For advice on your specific circumstances, speak to one of our directors. See our full disclaimer.