Christies v Christies (705/2006) [2007] ZANCHC 18 (2 March 2007)

Christies v Christies (705/2006) [2007] ZANCHC 18 (2 March 2007)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide any factual evidence or reasonable explanation for the omission of the alimony provisions from the final divorce order. The applicant was present in court, represented by counsel and attorney, and the order granted was exactly as requested. The court held that it cannot speculate on possible reasons for the omission and that, in the absence of evidence, it cannot conclude that the order was erroneously sought or granted. The application to amend the order under Rule 42(1)(a) was therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2007] ZANCHC 18
Parties
Applicant: Christie, J A; Respondent: Christie, G D M
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 March 2007
Case Number
705/2006
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Amend Final Divorce Order Under Rule 42(1)(a)
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Lacock
Legal Topics
Variation of Divorce Order, Maintenance, Rule 42 Application, Procedural Error
Family and Children Civil Procedure Variation of Divorce Order Maintenance Rule 42 Application Procedural Error

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christie, J A

Applicant

Christie, G D M

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Amend Final Divorce Order Under Rule 42(1)(a)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the omission of alimony provisions from the final divorce order was an error justifying amendment under Rule 42(1)(a).
  2. 2 Whether the applicant provided sufficient evidence that the order was erroneously sought or granted.
  3. 3 Whether the court has discretion to amend the order in the absence of supporting evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide any factual evidence or reasonable explanation for the omission of the alimony provisions from the final divorce order. The applicant was present in court, represented by counsel and attorney, and the order granted was exactly as requested. The court held that it cannot speculate on possible reasons for the omission and that, in the absence of evidence, it cannot conclude that the order was erroneously sought or granted. The application to amend the order under Rule 42(1)(a) was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.