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 1090
|
|
L.L v M.C.L (038505/2023) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1090 (28 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
IN THE HIGH COURT
OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL
DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO
:
038505/2023
DATE
:
21-08-2023
NO REPORTABLE
NOT OF INTEREST TO OTHER
JUDGES
REVISED
In
the matter between
L.L
Applicant
and
M.C.L
Respondent
J U D G M E N T
YACOOB,
J
:The parties are married to one
another and are in the midst of divorce proceedings. The
applicant brings an application that
the respondent be declared a
vexatious litigant in terms of section 2(1)(b) of the Vexatious
Proceedings Act and ordering that
no legal proceedings should be
instituted by the respondent against her without leave of that court
or a judge of the high court.
The
applicant sets out a number of instances in which the respondent laid
charges or complaints against her with the police.
She also
laid charges of rape against him and she contends that these charges
against her were a result or in retaliation of the
rape case.
The applicant also complains that the respondent has brought
applications for maintenance and for access to the
children of the
parties during the divorce which were without merit, and that there
were applications for protection orders which
were unsuccessful.
In
addition, the applicant complains that the respondent has brought
applications dealing with the close corporation which, according
to
the respondent, belongs to him and was transferred to the applicant
to allow him to continue with his political appointment
or his
political office. The applications dealing with the close
corporation have not yet been finalised, they are pending
in the high
court. The first is for the return of the close corporation to
him and the other is for an interdict against
the sale of property
belonging to the close corporation. As far these two
applications are concerned, the applicant does
not place any evidence
before the Court explaining why these applications are without
merit.
As
far as the complaints to the police are concerned, the applicant has
already obtained an order interdicting any charges against
her based
on complaints by the respondent, pending a decision by the National
Director of Public Prosecutions.
I am
not satisfied that the applicant has established that she is entitled
to the relief she has sought in the notice of motion,
that the
respondent be declared a vexatious litigant. If the respondent
is harassing the applicant, that is may found a basis
for different
relief which has not been sought before this Court. The Court
cannot make a case for the applicant, nor can
the Court advise the
applicant on what relief she should be seeking. The Court can
only decide whether she has made out a
case for the relief that she
has set out in her notice of motion.
I am
not satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated that the litigation
instituted by the respondent was without merit and therefore
that she
has demonstrated that he should be declared a vexatious litigant.
For
these reasons, the application is dismissed.
YACOOB, J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH
COURT
DATE
:
28 September 2023