- The court found the case was not ready because heads of argument were not filed in line with practice directives.
- Judge Tyuthuza held that the matter was not ripe for adjudication.
- The case was removed from the roll, and the applicant was ordered to pay costs.
A case landed before the High Court in the Northern Cape without the required written arguments and paid the price.
In Oreways Mining SA (Pty) Ltd v Magoma Attorneys and Another, Acting Judge T Tyuthuza was confronted with an opposed application that had been enrolled for hearing but arrived in a state of clear unreadiness.
The application, brought by Oreways Mining SA (Pty) Ltd against Magoma Attorneys and First National Bank Limited, had worked its way through several procedural steps and was set down for hearing on 6 March 2026. But when the matter finally reached court, the filing of heads of argument had gone unmet.
Case arrives without heads of argument
While preparing for the opposed motion, Judge Tyuthuza went through the court file and found it ran to more than 100 pages. Yet at that stage, not a single set of heads of argument had been filed.
He recorded, “The parties had not filed any heads of argument, thus I was of the view that the matter was not ripe for hearing.”
Heads of argument must be filed before a hearing so that the court has a clear picture of each party’s legal position. Here, their absence left the court without the structured submissions it needed to engage meaningfully with the case.
Late filing does not cure the problem
Shortly before the hearing, the first respondent did eventually file its heads of argument, but only two days before the matter was due to be heard, and without any application for condonation. The applicant, Oreways Mining SA, filed nothing.
The court set out the position, saying, “The applicant had not complied in that it did not file any heads of argument, whilst the first respondent filed heads of argument, but these heads of argument were not filed in compliance with the practice directives.”
At 126 pages, the application qualified as a long application, which triggered an earlier filing deadline for heads of argument under the court’s practice directives. Neither party met that deadline.
Hearing day without a ready case
When the matter was called on 6 March 2026, the lack of preparation could no longer be ignored.
Counsel for the applicant accepted that the matter was not ready and asked for it to be removed from the roll, tendering costs. Counsel for the first respondent pushed back, arguing instead that the matter should be struck from the roll and contending that the absence of heads of argument did not automatically bar the court from proceeding.
Judge Tyuthuza indicated that he had not read the papers. “I did not read the papers, as I was under the impression that the matter would not be proceeding.”
Court refuses to hear the matter
The court confined itself to whether the matter could properly proceed. Judge Tyuthuza stated, “In my view, the matter was not ready for adjudication.”
He was unwilling to strike the matter from the roll without having properly considered the full record. Instead, he exercised his discretion and removed it.
The judge explained the outcome, “I exercised my discretion and removed the matter from the roll because… it was not ripe for hearing.”
Although the first respondent pushed for a punitive costs order, the court was not persuaded. Judge Tyuthuza stated, “I was not satisfied that a punitive costs order was warranted.”
The court ordered Oreways Mining SA to pay costs on a party and party Scale B.
Focus of the judgment
The judgment says nothing about the underlying dispute between the parties. The outcome turned entirely on procedure, specifically the failure by both sides to properly file heads of argument before the hearing.
Get your news on the go. Clickhere to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.in
