C.E.B v C.T.W.B and Others (2021/7796) [2023] ZAGPJHC 971 (30 August 2023)

C.E.B v C.T.W.B and Others (2021/7796) [2023] ZAGPJHC 971 (30 August 2023)

The court found that the applicant failed to act with the necessary urgency required by rule 6(12) of the Uniform Rules. Despite being aware of the sale process since 2021 and the possibility of a claim based on a verbal promise since June 2023, the applicant delayed launching the application until August 2023 and did so on very short notice. The court held that no case was made out for urgent relief, as the facts justifying urgency were available to the applicant well before the application was brought. The application was therefore struck from the roll for want of urgency, and costs were awarded against the applicant.

Citation
[2023] ZAGPJHC 971
Parties
Applicant: C.E.B; Respondent: C.T.W.B; Respondent: Elmari van Heerden; Respondent: Elmari van Heerden Prokureurs
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 August 2023
Case Number
2021/7796
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application Struck From Roll for Lack of Urgency
Outcome
Application struck from the roll for lack of urgency; costs awarded against the applicant.
Judges
Moorcroft
Legal Topics
Rule 6 12 Urgency, Anti Dissipation Interdict, Accrual System Divorce, Trust Retention of Sale Proceeds
Civil Procedure Family and Children Rule 6 12 Urgency Anti Dissipation Interdict Accrual System Divorce Trust Retention of Sale Proceeds

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C.E.B

Applicant

C.T.W.B

Respondent

Elmari van Heerden

Respondent

Elmari van Heerden Prokureurs

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application Struck From Roll for Lack of Urgency

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for an anti-dissipation interdict was urgent and justified under rule 6(12).
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was entitled to an order retaining 50% of the sale proceeds in trust pending divorce finalisation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to act with the necessary urgency required by rule 6(12) of the Uniform Rules. Despite being aware of the sale process since 2021 and the possibility of a claim based on a verbal promise since June 2023, the applicant delayed launching the application until August 2023 and did so on very short notice. The court held that no case was made out for urgent relief, as the facts justifying urgency were available to the applicant well before the application was brought. The application was therefore struck from the roll for want of urgency, and costs were awarded against the applicant.

Court Disposition

Application struck from the roll for lack of urgency; costs awarded against the applicant.

Orders

  • The application is struck for lack of urgency.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the respondent's costs.