About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
>>
2023
>>
[2023] ZAGPJHC 715
|
|
T.M v W.K.M (2023-052942) [2023] ZAGPJHC 715 (15 June 2023)
SAFLII
Note:
Certain
personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been
redacted from this document in compliance with the law
and
SAFLII
Policy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA,
GAUTENG DIVISION,
JOHANNESBURG
2023-052942
NOT REPORTABLE
NOT OF INTEREST TO OTHER
JUDGES
In the application by
M,
T
First
Applicant
and
W
K M
Respondent
JUDGMENT
MOORCROFT AJ:
Order
[1] In this matter I made
the following order on 14 June 2023:
1.
The
application is removed from the roll and no order is made as to
costs.
[2] The reasons for the
order follow below.
Introduction
[3] This matter came
before me in the Urgent Court in Johannesburg on 14 June 2023. The
applicant sought an order that the respondent
be declared in contempt
of court of an order in the regional court in Roodepoort granted on 4
May 2023.
[4]
The proper
forum would be the court that made the order.
[1]
A High Court would hesitate to assume jurisdiction.
[5] The application is
based on the non-payment of maintenance and an alleged failure to add
the applicant and the minor children
as beneficiaries on the
respondent’s medical scheme.
[6]
The
evidence in the affidavits is sketchy but it is common cause
[2]
that numerous payments have been made. The papers do not reflect a
clear and accurate accounting of debits and credits, and the
respondent says in his affidavits that he makes payments as and when
he receives money from the tenders he is involved in.
[7] In respect of the
medical scheme there appears to have been a lack of communication
between the parties and their legal representatives
as the Bonitas
Medical Scheme had already on 24 May 2023 indicated that the
applicant had been added as a beneficiary. The present
status of the
children on the Scheme is unclear but the respondent will in any
event be liable for medical costs as the father
of the children.
[8] These facts relate
not only to urgency but also to the question whether the respondent
was mala fide.
[9] I therefore decline
to find that a proper case is made out for urgent relief under Rule
6(12) even if it were assumed that High
Court should entertain the
matter, a finding I do not make.
Conclusion
[10] For the reasons set
out above I make the order in paragraph 1.
J MOORCROFT
ACTING JUDGE OF THE
HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION
JOHANNESBURG
Electronically
submitted
Delivered: This judgement
was prepared and authored by the Acting Judge whose name is reflected
and is handed down electronically
by circulation to the Parties /
their legal representatives by email and by uploading it to the
electronic file of this matter
on CaseLines. The date of the judgment
is deemed to be
15 June 2023
.
COUNSEL
FOR THE APPLICANTS:
M
P ZWANE
INSTRUCTED
BY:
-
COUNSEL
FOR THE RESPONDENT:
P
M SUPING
INSTRUCTED
BY:
P
M SUPING ATTORNEYS
DATE
OF ARGUMENT:
14
JUNE 2023
DATE
OF ORDER:
14
JUNE 2023
DATE
OF JUDGMENT:
15
JUNE 2023
[1]
Section 106 of the Magistrates’ Court Act, 32 of 1944. See:
The
Master v Van Wijk
1916 OPD 80
;
James
v Lunden
1918 WLD 88
;
Komsane
v Komsane
1962 (3) SA 103
(C) 104E–F; Dreyer v Wiebols
2013 (4) SA 498
(GSJ),
DS
v RM
2015 (3) SA 424
(WCC) 430C,
and
Van Loggerenberg
Jones
and Buckle: Civil Practice of the Magistrates' Courts in South
Africa
10th
Ed. (Vol I) 658.
[2]
See the bank account at CaseLines 013-1.