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
>>
2022
>>
[2022] ZAGPJHC 829
|
|
N v N (2021/3737) [2022] ZAGPJHC 829 (24 October 2022)
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: 2021/3737
Reportable: No
Of interest to other
judges: No
Revised:yes
24 October 2022
In
the matter between:
N
[....], L [....] P [....] S
[....]
APPLICANT
And
N
[....], I [....] V [....]
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
– WRIGHT J
WRIGHT
J
1.
The applicant for rule 43 relief, which relief
includes claims for maintenance money does not set out at all, either
in her founding
affidavit or in a supplementary affidavit filed
without leave and with no accompanying application for condonation,
what her income
is.
2.
It is unreasonable to expect a judge to try and
work out what an income might be from vague allegations in a founding
affidavit
read with a few attached bank statements. It is unfair to
expect an opposing litigant to trawl through annexes in an attempt to
work out what the case is that needs to be answered.
3.
The applicant’s heads of argument were
uploaded to caselines today, 24 October 2022, the day of hearing,
without explanation.
This is hopelessly out of time.
4.
Applicant’s counsel, Adv V Rikhotso, is a
highly competent counsel and did her best in an attempt to salvage
the hearing.
5.
A draft order, presented to me on behalf of the
applicant was very difficult to read. Ms Rikhotso corrected it. I had
called for
a draft order from both sides so that I could know what
order each side was seeking.
6.
Sadly, just before the hearing may have started,
Mr Du Plessis, for the respondent informed me that he had just
received news that
his wife was dying. I immediately excused him. Ms
Diedericks, his attorney requested that the matter proceed. She
clearly knew
her papers and had even done a calculation of the
applicant’s income based on the annexes to the founding
affidavit. She
submitted that the applicant made more than enough
money and that the application should be dismissed.
7.
Ms Diedericks may be correct, but I need to do
justice between the parties. I do not know why the applicant’s
case was presented
like it was. Ms Rikhotso made mention of there
perhaps being some urgency. There is no urgency in the present
application. It is
an ordinary rule 43 case.
8.
Ms Diedericks opposed the admission into evidence
of the applicant’s supplementary affidavit. I make no finding
on the admissibility
into evidence of the supplementary affidavit.
9.
In my view, given all the circumstances, it is in
the interests of justice that I make the following order.
ORDER
1.
The matter is postponed sine die, costs reserved.
2.
The applicant is to deliver a supplementary
affidavit by 5pm on 4 November 2022.
3.
The respondent may deliver a supplementary
affidavit within ten court days thereafter.
HEARD
: 24 October 2022
DELIVERED
: 24 October 2022
APPEARANCES
APPLICANT
: Adv Vivian Rikhotso
073 221 3395
vrikhotso86@gmail.com
Jurgens Bekker
Attorneys
011 622 5472
RESPONDENT
: Adv C R Du Plessis and then Ms Diedericks
082 852 3505
charl@litigationsa.com
Diederiks Oudegeest
Attorneys Inc
010 110 9612/082
951 9575
diedericks@diedericksattorneys.com