SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document
in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Case Number s: 2020 -15202
and 2024- 023432
(1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO
(3) REVISED: YES/NO
In the matter between:
In the matter between
N[…] P[…] K[...]
Applicant
and
K[…] A[…] K[...]
Respondent
JUDGMENT
VON LUDWIG AJ :
Introduction
[1] There were, in total, five applications before me on one day, which were all
set down together by the Deputy Judge President.
[2] It makes perfect sense to me that all these applications should be set down
before the same Judge, at the same time, to enable a thorough but composite reading of all the papers, and to save both parties significant time and costs .
[3] In some applications Mrs K[...] is the Applicant and in others Mr K[...] is the
Applicant, the over -arching matter being their divorce.
[4] The first of the applications to be dealt with was what Mrs K[...] , as the
Applicant, referred to as the “Reconsideration Application” in which she asked that “the current hearing schedule must be reconsidered” She asked that the application brought by Mr K[...] to compel her to discover and comply with section 7 of the
Matrimonial Property Act should be postponed and that the remaining applications should be heard on the date which, she contends, they were “originally scheduled” being 24 March (one week later than the date on which the parties were before me). .
[5] She contended that her ability to prepare her submissions had been severely
prejudiced especially as a self -represented litigant.
[6] Mrs K[...] contended that the date had been arranged unilaterally by way of
what she termed “extra judicial correspondence” and that she had not had time to complete all her documents .
[7] She also contended that each application needed to be hea rd separately
otherwise “critical issues unique to each matter might be overshadowed or inadequately addressed” .
[8] She further thought that the correspondence requesting a single hearing date
could possible “taint the adjudicating panel” .
[9] After engaging with Mrs K[...], and hearing submissions from Ms Woodward
on which papers have been delivered (complete sets in the applications before me) I
made the following finding “I am absolutely satisfied that the Deputy Judge President
acted correctl y in allocating the date for all matters to be hea rd and insofar as there
can in fact even be before me an application for reconsideration of date, I am not entirely sure that I hav e the powe r as a court to tell the Deput y Judge President what
to do in terms of processes and procedure. The date ha s been correct ly allocated ”
and an ex tempore Order which may be found at page s 12 and particularly 13 (lines
7 to 10) of the Record and which is set out below :
ORDER :
[1] The application for reconsideration of date is quite simply dismissed as having
no basis in fact or in procedure.
VON LUDWIG, AJ
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
DATE: 18 March 2025
Appearances : For the Applicant : In person
For the Respondent : Adv J Woodward SC
Instructed by Phillippa Kruger Attorney