C.M.N v N.N. (2025/177461) [2026] ZAGPJHC 705 (15 May 2026)

30 Reportability

Brief Summary

Appeal — Leave to appeal — Striking off application for lack of urgency — Applicant sought leave to appeal against order striking matter off the roll in urgent family court application — Court held that striking off order was not final and did not dispose of substantive issues — Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs as it constituted an abuse of process.

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 DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG


Case Number: 2025-177461











In the matter between:


C[…] M[…] N[…] Applicant

and

N[…] N[…] (born M[…]) Respondent



JUDGMENT
CRUTCHFIELD J


[1] This applicant, C[…] M[…] N[…] , sought leave to appeal against the judgment
and order granted by me in the u rgent family court application brought by the
applicant. The applicant is self-represented and appeared in person before me.
[2] The respondent, N […] N [...], opposed the application for leave to appeal and
claimed the dismissal of the application with costs.
[3] I delivered judgment in the urgent application on 16 April 2026. I struck the
matter off the roll for lack of urgency and reserved the costs for determination
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED: YES
15 May 2026 _________________________
DATE SIGNATURE

2

by the trial court in the divorce proceedings. The applicant s ought leave to
appeal against the striking off order.
[4] The order striking the matter off the roll wa s not final in nature and did not
dispose of any substantive issues in the application.
[5] A striking off order is granted customarily in the urgent court when an
application is not urgent and ought not to have been brought in the urgent
court, as occurred in the applicant’s application. The order meant that the
application was not dealt with finally 1 on the merits. The applicant remained
entitled to set the application down for hearing on the merits on the ordinary
opposed roll of the family court, if the applicant chose to do so.
[6] This application for leave to appeal had no merit whatsoever and constituted
an abuse of this court’s process. The respondent is entitled to her costs.
[7] In the circumstances, I grant the following order:
1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

I hand down the judgment.
___________________________
CRUTCHFIELD J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
JOHANNESBURG



For the Applicant: Self-represented in person.

For the Respondent: Adv D Ndlovu instructed by N A Nkabinde
Attorneys.

Date of the hearing: 15 May 2026.


1 Turner and Another v Ntintelo and Another [2023] ZAWCHC 51 para 62; J.M.M. and Another v Cara
Dorothy Masureik and Others (807/2024) [2026] ZASCA 1.

3

Date of the judgment: 15 May 2026.