Sabeeha v Ali (2023/062743) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1220 (15 November 2024)

45 Reportability

Brief Summary

Appeal — Leave to appeal — Jurisdiction in matrimonial matters — Applicant sought leave to appeal against judgment dismissing rule 43 application on grounds of lack of jurisdiction following dissolution of marriage by Talaq — Respondent’s counsel argued that rule 43 orders are not appealable — Court found that important issues raised by applicant’s counsel were not previously addressed, but ultimately refused leave to appeal with costs.

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
>>
2024
>>
[2024] ZAGPJHC 1220
|

|

Sabeeha v Ali (2023/062743) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1220 (15 November 2024)

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION,
JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO: 2023-062743
(1)
REPORTABLE:
YES / NO
(2)
OF
INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO
(3)
REVISED.
In the matter between:
ESSOP
SABEEHA
APPLICANT
And
HAFFEJEE
ZIYAAD ASHRAF ALI
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
MABESELE
J:
[1]
This is
an application for leave to appeal against the whole of my judgement
and order. The judgement and order was granted in favor
of the
respondent due to persuasive argument by the respondent’s
Counsel that, since the marriage between the applicant and
respondent
was dissolved by the issuance of a Talaq, the court has no
jurisdiction to entertain rule 43 application. The applicant’s

counsel, who received a brief on the eleventh hour to argue the
applicant’s case, was unable to persuade me otherwise.
[2]  The applicant’s
attorney has raised important issues, both in his grounds for leave
to appeal and during argument.
He substantiated his argument with
relevant case law. Regrettably, some of these issues were not raised
by his predecessor during
rule 43 application. In any event the
respondent’s counsel argued, rightly, that rule 43 orders are
not appealable. In this
regard, she sought reliance on numerous
cases, including the Constitutional Court judgement of S V S and
Another 2019(6) SA 1(CC)
and Section 16(3) of the Superior Court Act
10 of 2013.
Having considered the argument and
submissions made by both counsel, I come to the following conclusion.
1.
Leave
to appeal is refused with costs, including the costs of counsel on
scale B.
M.M MABESELE
(Judge of the High Court Gauteng
Local Division)
Appearances
On behalf of the Applicant:
Mr
S Dollie
From:
Shaheed
Dollie Inc. Attorneys
On behalf of the Respondent:
Adv.
A Saldulker
Instructed by:
N.
Moola Incorporated
Date of Hearing:
14
November 2024
Date
of Judgment:
15
November 2024