About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2009
>>
[2009] ZAGPPHC 372
|
|
S v A (49023/2007) [2009] ZAGPPHC 372 (5 November 2009)
SAFLII
Note:
Certain
personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been
redacted from this document in compliance with the law
and
SAFLII
Policy
/EVDM
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SUID AFRICA
(NORTH
GAUTENG HIGH COURT)
CASE
NUMBER: 49023/2007
DATE:
05 NOVEMBER 2009
In
the matter between:
N.S. APPLICANT
vs
A.
K.
A. RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
Matter
heard on: 03 November 2009
Delivered
on 05 November 2009
BAM
AJ.
§
1. The parties had a […..] from which a child was born on the
[…..], initially the parties lived together but
the respondent
left the applicant on the 15
th
of June 2007 and moved in with her half sister. From the applicants
version it appears that he was inter alia dissatisfied about
the
surrounding circumstances where the respondent and the child then
resided.
§
2. The applicant then under certain pretexts removed the child from
the custody of the respondent. This act resulted in an
urgent
application (Case Number: 48373/2007) launched by the respondent
against the applicant for the return of the child. The
application
was successful.
§
3. Subsequently the applicant lodged an application in this court
against the respondent, primarily regarding the exercising
of his
rights of access pertaining to the child.
§
4. This application was settled between the parties after the family
advocates office investigated the situation and brought
out a report.
In terms of the settlement agreement between the parties it appears
that, more specifically, the applicant's rights
regarding the removal
of the child from the custody of the respondent for the purposes of
exercising applicants rights, were specified.
§
5. It appears from the papers that the applicant was at all relevant
times before the settlement of the matter entitled to
and did in fact
exercise his afore said rights regarding the child.
§
6. Apart from the fact that the status quo has changed in the sense
that the parties are not living together any more, it
appears that
the settlement agreement entails the usual rights of parties in
similar circumstances.
§
7. Ms. Delport appearing for the applicant submitted that each party
should pay his/her own costs of the application that
was settled as
mentioned before. Mr Lennox appearing for the respondent submitted
that the applicant should pay the costs because
of the fact that he
created the problem and that the respondent was accordingly compelled
to oppose the application in view of
several allegations the
applicant made regarding the respondents tack of properly caring for
the child. It is true that this matter
has a history regarding
allegations made by the parties regarding the alleged lack of each
party to properly care for the child.
§
8. I have perused the evidence on record and I have carefully
considered the submissions made by counsel In view of the way
In
which the matter was settled, from which both parties benefited, and
the history of the matter, I am of the opinion that each
party should
bear Its own costs.
§
9. Accordingly I make the following order:
§
9.1 The parties are ordered to pay their own costs.
A.J.
BAM
Acting
Judge of the High Court
Applicant:
Counsel:
Ms.
Deport
Attorney
on record:
Krause
Attorneys
Tel
: 011 615 4862
c/o
HKR Attorneys
Waterkloof
Ridge
Pretoria
Respondent:
Counsel:
Mr
Lennox
Attorney
on record:
Schoeman
& Associates
Tel:
012 346 8606
Ref:
D.J. Scoeman/yb
File
No: SA 0292