Macrae v Heyns (4274/2003) [2004] ZAFSHC 23 (1 April 2004)

About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
>>
2004
>>
[2004] ZAFSHC 23
|

|

Macrae v Heyns (4274/2003) [2004] ZAFSHC 23 (1 April 2004)

IN THE HIGH
COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(ORANGE FREE STATE PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
Application No.: 4274/2003
In
the matter between:
RODERICK
SEAN MACRAE
Applicant
and
SUZETTE
HEYNS
Respondent
___________________________________________________________
CORAM:
MALHERBE
J.P.
___________________________________________________________
HEARD
ON:
25 MARCH 2004
___________________________________________________________
DELIVERED
ON:
1 APRIL 2004
___________________________________________________________
The parties to this application were previously married
to one another. A girl, D, was born from this marriage on 10
November 1995.
The marriage was dissolved by this Court on 9 October
1997 and her custody was granted to respondent. In the Deed of
Settlement
that was made an order of Court the parties agreed
“
Dat die Eiser geregtig sal
wees om die minderjarige dogter, benewens sy reg op redelike toegang
te alle redelike tye, by hom te neem
vir een naweek per maand asook
alternatiewe lang en kort skoolvakansies per jaar sodra die kind
skoolgaande ouderdom bereik, met
dien verstande dat die dogter die
Kersvakansies om die beurt by die onderskeie partye sal deurbring.”
Both parties have remarried since their divorce.
Applicant works and lives in Sasolburg while respondent resides in
Welkom.
Applicant
sets out his case as follows:
“
9.
For the ensuing couple of years,
(i.e. after the divorce) and until the end of 2002, I exercised
unhindered access to my daughter
in terms of the Order of Court. My
right of access was extended to include alternate school holidays in
2002 when D started school.
She would on occasion also spend two
weekends in a month with me.
13.
Due to the nature of my
employment as Branch Manager of Lubners Furnishers, I am required to
attend work every Saturday from 08:00
to 13:00.
14.
My daughter has often
accompanied me to work on a Saturday morning, where she is well liked
by the personnel who dote over her on
each occasion. I am
nonetheless constantly in close proximity of her all the time.
15.
The love and affection that my
wife and personnel share with D is reciprocated by her and she is
most comfortable in the company of
both parties. The Respondent has
at all times been aware of these arrangements.
16.
During November 2002, the
Respondent unexpectedly changed her stance and insisted that if I
wanted to exercise access to D I was not
to work over weekends.
17.
Although the Respondent can give
no justification for this sudden and unreasonable change in attitude,
it is my respectful submission
that her conduct is motivated by
capriciousness towards my wife for the reasons set out here below.
28.
The Respondent continues to deny
me access to D unless I refrain from working over the weekend on
which access is to be exercised.
30.
I respectfully submit that the
Respondent’s demands are not in the best interest of D and
constitute contempt of Court.”
He seeks the following relief in his notice of motion:
“
1) That the Respondent be
held in contempt of the order of the above Honourable Court granted
on 9 October 1997 under Case Number
3543/97, a copy of which is
annexed hereto marked Annexure “RM1”.
2) That the Respondent be
committed to imprisonment due to her contempt for a period of seven
(7) days, or such period as the above
Honourable Court may deem fit,
suspended on condition that the Respondent forthwith complies with
the aforestated Order of Court
referred to in prayer 1 upon service
of the present application.
3) Cost
of suit.”
There
are many disputes of fact between the parties about the detail of
events over the last number of years. It is common cause,
however,
that respondent does not want D to visit applicant on Saturdays when
he has to work. I quote from the answering affidavit:
“
3.
Ek wil ook daarop wys dat ek
nooit bedoel het om ‘n hofbevel doelbewus te verontagsaam nie en
ontken dat ek die opset gehad het
om ‘n misdryf soos beweer in die
aansoek, te pleeg. Ek het slegs as moeder in belang van my
minderjarige kindjie opgetree en versoek
die hof om my optrede in
daardie lig te oordeel.
6.4.2 Ek weier Applikant nie
toegang nie. Om redes wat hieronder blyk, het ek versoek dat hy sy
toegangsregte uitoefen op naweke
wat hy nie werk nie of na werk op
Saterdae.
6.4.3 Ek weier Applikant nie
toegang nie. Hy het vrye telefoniese kontak met ons kind en was sy
onlangs saam met hom na sy ouerhuis.
Ons dogter D het by haar
grootouers gekuier waar hy haar gekry het. Dit was tydens die
Desember 2003 vakansie.
13.2 D het ‘n tyd gelede gekla
dat as Applikant op ‘n Saterdagoggend werk, mev. Macrae tot so laat
as 11h00 slaap en dat sy wat
D is, nie toegelaat word om vir haarself
kos te neem nie.
13.3 D het dus gekla dat sy
dikwels op ‘n Saterdagoggend honger moet bly totdat mev. Macrae
uiteindelik opstaan en vir haar kos
gee. Ek het nie twyfel dat D die
waarheid praat nie en is sodanige optrede nie in belang van my kind
nie.
13.4 D het my verder meegedeel
dat sy te voet en sonder toesig vanaf Applikant se woonhuis na
Applikant se werk geloop het.
Dit is nie in belang van D nie.
Dit het daartoe gelei dat ek Applikant versoek het en ook aangedring
het dat hy sy toegangsregte
uitoefen wanneer hy die betrokke naweek
nie werk nie.
13.5 Applikant kan selfs
reëlings tref om na werk op ‘n Saterdag vir D te kry.
13.6 Ek het mev. Macrae se
optrede en die klagtes van D met Applikant opgeneem. Sy antwoord was
dat ek dit maar met mev. Macrae moet
uitklaar.
14.1 Ek glo dat Applikant nie
alle Saterdae werk nie. Ek glo dat hy minstens een Saterdag per
maand af het omrede hy al teen 12h00
op ‘n Saterdag by my in die
Goudveld aangekom het om D te sien wat beteken dat hy al veel vroeër
uit Sasolburg moes vertrek het.
14.2 Ek is heeltemal bereid dat
Applikant se toegangsregte uitgeoefen word om hom byvoorbeeld lang
naweke te gun. Ek is ook bereid,
soos reeds gesê, dat hy haar op
Saterdae na werk hom haal.
15.1 Hy kan ook sekere Saterdae
verlof neem en daardie tyd aan sy kind spandeer.
15.2 Ek weier gevolglik nie
Applikant om toegang tot D te hê nie.
15.3 Ek het vir Applikant gesê
dat hy ander reëlings moet tref en dat ek weier dat my kind
blootgestel word om alleen in Sasolburg
se strate te loop. Ek het
geen versekering van Respondent gekry dat hy sal toesien dat sy nie
weer te voet van sy huis na sy werk
moet loop nie. Hierdie lakse
houding van hom om nie vir my die versekering te kan gee dat my kind
veilig is nie, het my genoop om
in belang van my kind te weier dat hy
haar kry as hy nie daar is om toesig te hou nie.”
Already
on 25 November 2002 respondent’s attorneys said virtually the same
to applicant’s attorneys in a letter of that date:
“
Dit is ten slotte ook ons
instruksies van ons kliënt om aan u te berig, soos ons hiermee doen,
dat ons kliënt van mening is dat
dit nie in die belang is van die
minderjarige kind om naweke na u kliënt toe te gaan indien u kliënt
die betrokke naweek werk nie.
Dit is ons instruksies van ons
kliënt dat u kliënt se eggenote nie die nodige aandag en sorg aan
die betrokke minderjarige kind
verleen indien u kliënt nie
teenwoordig is by die huishouding nie. In die verband sal ons dit op
prys stel indien u kliënt vir
ons kliënt in die toekoms ‘n
aanduiding kan gee van welke naweke hy nie werk nie en kan daar dan
met ‘n geruste hart ‘n reëling
getref word dat die minderjarige
kind na u kliënt gaan op sodanige naweke.
Ons plaas op rekord dat dit
geensins ons kliënt se begeerte is om u kliënt se toegangsregte tot
die minderjarige kind te frustreer
nie, maar dat voormelde versoek
gerig word in belang van die minderjarige kind en is dit ons
respekvolle submissie dat sodanige versoek
geensins onredelik is nie.
In die lig van voorafgaande,
verneem ons graag dringend van u.”
On 23 January 2003 applicant’s attorneys threatened
with an application in the following words:
“
2. In the circumstances, we
have been instructed to demand from you, as we hereby do, that you
immediately allow our client his reasonable
rights of access to the
minor child as directed by the Order of Court.
3. We advise that should you
fail to do so, our client will be necessitated to make the necessary
application to the High Court of
the Orange Free State Provincial
Division in regard to your failure thereto, and will furthermore hold
you liable for all costs incurred
in regard to the same.”
However, the application was only launched on 19
December 2003. Applicant’s explanation for this delay is as
follows:
“
31.3 The reason for the
twelve (12) month delay was due to the fact that I wished to firstly
reach an agreement with the Respondent
before approaching the High
Court.”
On behalf of applicant Mr Daffue conceded that this
explanation does not sound very convincing because there is no
reference in the
papers to any further correspondence between the
attorneys of the parties. They were clearly then at arms’ length
and would probably
not have communicated otherwise than through their
respective attorneys.
Apart
from the dispute about access to D, the amount of maintenance that
applicant has to pay for her, is also a bone of contention
between
the parties. In the Consent Paper applicant undertook to pay R250,00
per month as maintenance for her. She was then almost
2 years old.
This amount was increased to R400,00 per month since, apparently by
agreement between the parties. D is now 8 years
old. The papers
strongly suggest that respondent is contemplating an application in
the Maintenance Court for an increase of the
maintenance while
applicant apparently thinks that he is paying too much. The question
of maintenance seems to have driven the parties
further apart.
Contempt of court is the wilful and
mala
fide
refusal or failure to comply with an
order of court. (
The Law of South Africa
,
First Re-issue, Vol.3 par 354). Although it is clear on the papers
that respondent took a considered decision not to allow D to
visit
applicant while he was working on Saturdays, I cannot find that she
acted
mala fide
. On
the contrary, I am convinced that was
bona
fide
and was throughout acting on advice from
her attorneys. The applicant can, therefore, not succeed.
In
my view a custodian parent has the duty to seek the best interests of
the child or children in his or her custody. In the present
case it
is obvious that applicant insists that D visits him on Saturdays even
though he cannot personally take care of her. On the
other hand
respondent is not satisfied with such a situation. I can only appeal
to the parties and their attorneys to try and solve
their problems
amicably because neither party can afford this litigation.
There remains the question of costs. I have no doubt
that both parties acted throughout on the advice of their respective
attorneys
and that they both
bona fide
believed that their cause was just. Not one of them should be
penalised with an adverse costs order.
In
the premises I make the following order:
1. The
application is dismissed.
2. Each
party to pay his or her own costs.
____________________
J.P.
MALHERBE J.P.
On behalf of Applicant:
Adv.
J.P. Daffue
Instructed by
Van
der Merwe & Sorour,
Bloemfontein
On behalf of Respondent:
Adv.
P.J. Heymans
Instructed by
Lovius-Block
Bloemfontein
/scd