ex parte application is used: ‘An … … when, though persons may be affected by the court’s order, immediate relief (even though it be temporary in nature) is essential because of the danger in delay or because notice may precipitate the very harm the applicant is trying to forestall, for example an application for an interdict or an arrest tamquam suspectus de fuga under the common law.’ Similar commentary is found in - Superior Court Practice’ by Farlam, ‘Erasmus Fichardt & van Loggerenberg : ex parte application is used: ‘An … … were the nature of the relief sought is such that the giving of notice may defeat the purpose of the application, eg an Piller-type order; where immediate relief, even though it may be temporary in nature, is essential because harm is imminent. In such cases the applicant will often seek a rule nisi, the application then being in the nature of an ex parte application in terms of this subrule; where certain kinds of applications are customarily brought ex parte … ‘. [80] It emerges therefore that the applicant’s concerns could have been addressed - meaningfully - just like in the suspectus de fuga cases or in applications for Anton Piller orders - though the bringing of an ex parte application, which the applicant was in any event entitled to do, in terms of Section 51(2) of POCA, and which was also done in this instance. [81] If one then - for purposes of the afresh consideration of all the evidence before the court - considers on what further grounds the initial reasons advanced were amplified in the replying papers nothing really new emerges : it is in reply firstly reiterated that very purpose of authorizing ex parte ‘the proceedings, and of obtaining preservation orders, would be defeated if such applications would not be heard in camera and that, in order to ensure that any court
‘An ex parte application is used: … … when, though persons may be affected by the court’s order, immediate relief (even though it be temporary in nature) is essential because of the danger in delay or because notice may precipitate the very harm the applicant is trying to forestall, for example an application for an interdict or an arrest tamquam suspectus de fuga under the common law.’ Similar commentary is found in ‘Erasmus - Superior Court Practice’ by Farlam, Fichardt & van Loggerenberg : ‘An ex parte application is used: … … were the nature of the relief sought is such that the giving of notice may defeat the purpose of the application, eg an Piller-type order; where immediate relief, even though it may be temporary in nature, is essential because harm is imminent. In such cases the applicant will often seek a rule nisi, the application then being in the nature of an ex parte application in terms of this subrule; where certain kinds of applications are customarily brought ex parte … ‘. [80] It emerges therefore that the applicant’s concerns could have been addressed - meaningfully - just like in the suspectus de fuga cases or in applications for Anton Piller orders - though the bringing of an ex parte application, which the applicant was in any event entitled to do, in terms of Section 51(2) of POCA, and which was also done in this instance. [81] If one then - for purposes of the afresh consideration of all the evidence before the court - considers on what further grounds the initial reasons advanced were amplified in the replying papers nothing really new emerges : it is in reply firstly reiterated that ‘the very purpose of authorizing ex parte proceedings, and of obtaining preservation orders, would be defeated if such applications would not be heard in camera and that, in order to ensure that any court
The%20Prosecutor%20General%20v%20Uuyuni%20(POCA%204-2012)%20[2013]%20NAHCMD%2067%20(12%20March%202013).docx