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 DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO: 012480/2023
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED.
DATE 24/11/2025
LENYAI J
In the matter of:
N[...] P[...] M[...] Applicant
And
M[...] O[...] M[...] Respondent
Delivered: This judgment is handed down electronically by circulation to the Par-
ties/their legal representatives by email and by uploading to Caselines. The date and
time of hand-down is deemed to be 14:00 on 24 November 2025.
__________________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
________________________________________________________________________________
LENYAI J
1. This is an application for leave to appeal brought by the applicant against the
ex tempore judgment and order granted by me on the 1st September 2025. It
is noteworthy to mention that this order was granted in an Application
brought in terms of Rule 43 of the Uniform Rules of Court.
2. The application for leave to appeal was brought out of time and the applicant
sought condonation for the late filling of the application. There was no oppo-
sition to the condonation application and same was granted.
3. The test for the granting of leave to appeal pertinent to the present matter is
set out in section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 as follows:
“(1) Leave to appeal may only be given where the judge or judges concerned are
of the opinion that
(a) (i) the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success or
(ii) there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be
heard, including conflicting judgments on the matter under considera-
tion.”
4. I have considered the grounds upon which the application has been brought
and the reasons given by me for the judgment and the order. I have also
considered the submissions made by counsel for the granting of leave to ap-
peal on the part of the applicant and those opposing the granting of leave to
appeal on behalf of the respondent.
5. Lest we forget, it is trite that Rule 43 orders are interim in nature and are not
intended to be appealed. See S v S and Another [2019] ZACC @ para 33.
In this matter the Constitutional Court enforced the principle that Rule 43 ap-
plications serve as a mechanism for swift and cost effective interim relief dur-
ing divorce proceedings and are not subject to appeal.
6. The apex court also acknowledged that litigants are not precluded from
seeking a variation order under Rule 43(6) albeit with restrictions. The appli-
cant had not submitted an updated financial disclosure form for considera-
tion by the court hence the order that was granted.
7. I am not persuaded that another court would come to a different conclusion
or that there is some other compelling reason why leave to appeal should be
granted
8. In the circumstances, I make the following order:
8.1 The application for leave to appeal is refused.
8.2 The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the respondent on scale B.
______________
MMD LENYAI J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
Appearances
Counsel for Appellants : Mr Malale
Instructed by Malale Nthapeleng Attorneys
Counsel for Respondent. : Adv A.J Schoeman
Instructed by : Shapiro & Haasbroek Attor-
neys
Date of hearing : 18 November 2025
Date of Judgement : 24 November 2025