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 1051
|
|
L.N v N.N (A2023/005472) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1051 (19 September 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
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH
AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION,
JOHANNESBURG
CASE
NO:A2023-005472
NOT REPORTABLE
NOT OF INTEREST TO OTHER
JUDGES
NOT REVISED
19.09.23
In the matter between:
L
.N
Appellant
And
N.N
Respondent
JUDGMENT
DU PLESSIS AJ
[1]
This is an appeal against the judgment of
Magistrate Mkata, sitting as the court of first instance at Booysens.
The issues in this
appeal dealt with the future maintenance of the
parties’ children, and particularly whether the magistrate was
correct in
ordering that the Appellant’s share of the proceeds
of the sale of the parties’ immovable property be attached for
purposes of paying for the future maintenance of the children. The
order of current and future maintenance in a lumpsum was also
appealed.
[2]
When the hearing commenced, the Respondent was not
present. There was a notice of set down uploaded on CaseLines. There
was no official
service on the Respondent, but she did sign the
notice of set down delivered at her home by hand. There was no notice
of intention
to oppose. We thus continued on an unopposed basis.
[3]
After hearing the Appellant, we reserved judgment.
We had to recall the matter when the Respondent turned up in person
at the court.
The Respondent turned up at court on time but could not
find the court as the matter was heard online. She eventually
contacted
Acting Judge Moorcroft’s registrar, who assisted her
in joining online.
[4]
She addressed the court, stating that she could
not afford legal services. She did ask an attorney for help but was
told that she
must just come in and listen in and that they would
take it from there. She states that the appeal must fail as she has
something
to argue.
[5]
The matter was then removed from the roll.
Moorcroft AJ stated that he will refer the matter to the bar to see
if an advocate cannot
assist as the issues are intricate legal
issues. The interests of the children are involved.
[6]
In response to the removal, the Appellant stated
that they spoke to the Respondent’s attorneys but they did not
respond. They,
therefore, ask for costs. However, in these
circumstances it is more prudent to reserve the costs so that
argument can be made
on behalf of the Respondent when the matter is
heard.
Order
[7]
I, therefore, make the following order:
1.
The matter is removed from the roll, costs are
reserved.
WJ DU PLESSIS
Acting
Judge of the High Court
I Agree
J
MOORCROFT
Acting
Judge of the High Court
Delivered: This
judgement is handed down electronically by uploading it to the
electronic file of this matter on CaseLines.
It will be sent to the
parties/their legal representatives by email.
Counsel for the
Appellant:
Mr T Qhali
Instructed by:
Ramoromisi Attorneys
Counsel for the
respondent:
No appearance, self
represented
Instructed by:
No appearance
Date
of the hearing:
08 August 2023
Date
of judgment:
19 September 2023