SAFLII Note: Certain personal/privat e 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
LIMPOPO DIVISION, POLOKWANE
CASE NO: 9187/2022
In the matter between:
B[...] S[...] APPLICANT
AND
I[...] S[...] RESPONDENT
DELIVERED: 16 APRIL 2026
(1) REPORTABLE: YES/NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO
(3) REVISED: YES/NO
16/04/2026 ___________________
Date Signature
This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties’
legal representatives by e-mail. The date and time for hand down of the
judgment is deemed to be 16 April 2026 at 10:00 A.M.
Date heard: 14 APRIL 2026
Coram: NGOBENI J
JUDGMENT
NGOBENI J
[1] This matter came before court as an urgent unopposed application on 14
April 2026. The applicant alleges that the respondent violated the court
order granted on 18 July 2023. The summary of the prayers by the
applicant, on Part A of the application, is that the respondent must be
committed to prison for a period of twelve months, or such period as the
court would deem just. The alternative prayer is that the twelve months
suggested must be suspended for a period of one year upon compliance
with the said court order.
[2] There is no notice of intention to oppose this application, but Advocate
Botes appeared in court on behalf of the respondent, and at that time it
was brought to the attention of the court that the respondent has filed
heads of argument. The submission by Mr. Grobler, representing the
applicant (applicant), was that the matter remained unopposed because
there are no papers filed to show that the application is opposed.
[3] The submission by the legal representative of the respondent
(respondent) was that the notice of motion was not served on the
respondent, and no return of service could be produced by the applicant
because the notice of motion was delivered to the offices of the attorneys
representing the respondent. The response by the applicant is that the
notice of motion was served on the attorneys of record of the respondent,
who are representing the respondent in the divorce matter.
[4] Rule 4(1)(aA) of the Uniform Rules of Court (Rule/s) states that where
the person to be served with any document initiating application
proceedings is already represented by an attorney of record, such
document may be served upon such attorney by the party initiating such
proceedings. The fact that the respondent was represented in court and
her heads of argument were uploaded or filed is an indication that the
notice of motion was brought to her attention. The submission by her
legal representative, for failure to file opposing papers is that she is sick.
[5] Rule 27(3) empowers the court to condone any non -compliance on good
cause shown. The nature of the application that is before court if granted,
may result in the incarceration of the respondent. It is for that reason
that the court will exercise its discretion and grant the respondent an
opportunity to file her opposing papers on terms.
[6] In the result the following order is made:
(i) the application is removed from the roll,
(ii) the respondent is granted leave to file its opposing papers on or
before 20 April 2026,
(iii) costs are reserved.
_________________________
J.T. NGOBENI
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
Appearances
For the Applicant : Mr. J.T. Grobler
Instructed by : Thomas Grobler Attorneys
E-mail : info@tgprok.co.za
For the Respondent : Adv. F.W. Botes SC
Instructed by :Kampherbeek Twine & Pogrund
Attorneys
E-mail :ktp16@ktpsa.co.za
Date of the hearing : 14 April 2026
Date of judgment : 16 April 2026