C.W and Another v Potgieter and Others (88660/2019) [2024] ZAGPPHC 262 (14 March 2024)

C.W and Another v Potgieter and Others (88660/2019) [2024] ZAGPPHC 262 (14 March 2024)

Condonation for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal was granted due to the personal circumstances of the First Respondent. However, leave to appeal was refused as the interlocutory order compelling compliance with a previous judgment is not appealable in principle, and the First Respondent failed to demonstrate any reasonable prospect of success or compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. The allegations of bias and misconduct by the court and curatrix ad litem were unfounded, unsupported by evidence, and dismissed with contempt. The amendments to the previous order were granted by consensus of the parties to reflect the changed circumstances. The costs order...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPPHC 262
Parties
Applicant: C[...] J[...] W[...]; Applicant: B[...] W[...]; Respondent: Schalk Jacobus Potgieter; Respondent: Helen Isabel Potgieter; Respondent: Lesego Vilakazi NO; Respondent: ABSA Trust; Respondent: ABSA Pension Fund; Respondent: Master of the High Court
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 March 2024
Case Number
88660/2019
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Interlocutory Judgment; Condonation for Late Filing Considered and Granted.
Outcome
Application for condonation granted; application for leave to appeal refused; previous order amended; costs awarded against First Respondent.
Judges
Holland-Muter
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Condonation, Minor Children Guardianship, Costs Order, Interlocutory Order
Civil Procedure Family and Children Leave to Appeal Condonation Minor Children Guardianship Costs Order Interlocutory Order

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C[...] J[...] W[...]

Applicant

B[...] W[...]

Applicant

Schalk Jacobus Potgieter

Respondent

Helen Isabel Potgieter

Respondent

Lesego Vilakazi NO

Respondent

ABSA Trust

Respondent

ABSA Pension Fund

Respondent

Master of the High Court

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Interlocutory Judgment; Condonation for Late Filing Considered and Granted.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal should be granted.
  2. 2 Whether leave to appeal against the interlocutory order compelling compliance with a previous judgment should be granted.
  3. 3 Whether allegations of bias and misconduct by the court and curatrix ad litem have merit.

Ratio Decidendi

Condonation for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal was granted due to the personal circumstances of the First Respondent. However, leave to appeal was refused as the interlocutory order compelling compliance with a previous judgment is not appealable in principle, and the First Respondent failed to demonstrate any reasonable prospect of success or compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. The allegations of bias and misconduct by the court and curatrix ad litem were unfounded, unsupported by evidence, and dismissed with contempt. The amendments to the previous order were granted by consensus of the parties to reflect the changed circumstances. The costs order...

Court Disposition

Application for condonation granted; application for leave to appeal refused; previous order amended; costs awarded against First Respondent.

Orders

  • Condonation for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal is granted.
  • Leave to appeal is refused.