Download PDF

South Africa Order

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

D.S.F v M.F and Another (347/2024) [2024] ZAFSHC 48 (16 February 2024)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court determined that it could not properly adjudicate the points in limine of lis pendens and res judicata without considering aspects of the merits of the application. Therefore, the matter was postponed to allow for full argument on all issues, including the merits, and for the parties to file supplementary heads of argument. The court exercised its discretion to ensure a fair and comprehensive hearing, prioritizing procedural fairness and the interests of justice.

Court disposition

Application postponed for full hearing; supplementary heads of argument to be filed; costs reserved.

Orders

  • The application is postponed to the opposed motion roll of Thursday, 22 February 2024, at 9h30.
  • The parties are ordered to file supplementary heads of argument addressing all issues in dispute, especially the merits.
  • Applicant to file heads of argument by Monday, 19 February 2024, at 12h00.
  • Respondent to file heads of argument by Wednesday, 21 February 2024, at 15h00.
  • Applicant's attorney to ensure the court file is properly filed, paginated, and indexed by Monday, 19 February 2024, at 15h00.
  • Costs of 8 February 2024 stand over for later adjudication.

02

Material facts

Parties

D[...] S[...] F[...]

Applicant Counsel: H. J. van der Merwe

M[...] F[...]

Respondent Counsel: N. Nortjé

THE OFFICE OF THE FAMILY ADVOCATE, RUSTENBURG

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Urgent Application / Interlocutory Postponement; Points in Limine Argued

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicant agreed to the postponement to allow for the filing of detailed supplementary heads of argument and expressed reservations about adjudicating the points in limine without addressing the merits.
Respondent
The respondent requested that the points in limine, namely lis pendens and res judicata, be argued immediately, submitting that if either point is upheld, the matter would be concluded without the need to address the merits.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    General principles of civil procedure

    Points in limine such as lis pendens and res judicata may require consideration of the merits to be properly adjudicated.

  2. 02

    Practice directives and inherent jurisdiction

    A court may postpone an application to allow parties to file supplementary heads of argument and ensure proper adjudication.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court determined that it could not properly adjudicate the points in limine of lis pendens and res judicata without considering aspects of the merits of the application. Therefore, the matter was postponed to allow for full argument on all issues, including the merits, and for the parties to file supplementary heads of argument. The court exercised its discretion to ensure a fair and comprehensive hearing, prioritizing procedural fairness and the interests of justice.

Obiter and limits

  • The volume and complexity of the application papers necessitate detailed argument and careful consideration.
  • Urgent applications require efficient management but should not compromise the parties' right to be heard fully.

Court disposition

Application postponed for full hearing; supplementary heads of argument to be filed; costs reserved.

  • The application is postponed to the opposed motion roll of Thursday, 22 February 2024, at 9h30.
  • The parties are ordered to file supplementary heads of argument addressing all issues in dispute, especially the merits.
  • Applicant to file heads of argument by Monday, 19 February 2024, at 12h00.
  • Respondent to file heads of argument by Wednesday, 21 February 2024, at 15h00.
  • Applicant's attorney to ensure the court file is properly filed, paginated, and indexed by Monday, 19 February 2024, at 15h00.
  • Costs of 8 February 2024 stand over for later adjudication.

Source and reliance status

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Order

[2024] ZAFSHC 48

SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private 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

FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN

Reportable: YES/NO

Of Interest to other Judges: YES/NO

Circulate to Magistrates: YES/NO

Application no: 347/2024

In the matter between: D[…] S[…] F[…] Applicant and M[…] F[…] 1st Respondent THE OFFICE OF THE FAMILY ADVOCATE,

RUSTENBURG 2nd Respondent

CORAM:

VAN ZYL, J

HEARD ON: 8 FEBRUARY 2024

DELIVERED ON: 16 FEBRUARY 2024

[1] This is an urgent application which, inter alia, entails a dispute in respect of the minor children`s primary residence and contact rights pending a divorce action, together with ancillary relief.

[2] Adv. HJ van der Merwe appeared on behalf of the applicant and Adv. N Nortjé on behalf of the first respondent (“the respondent”).

Background:

[3] The application papers are very voluminous and include other court applications as annexures thereto, which would necessitate lengthy arguments. Due to time constraints as a result of a very busy schedule of urgent applications which were due to be heard on the same day (Thursday) and the following day, I suggested that the matter be postponed for a week, which would also grant the parties the necessary time to draft detailed supplementary heads of argument in addition to the concise heads which they have already filed, on the basis that I will request the Judge President that the matter again be allocated to me, since I have already perused the papers.

[4] After counsel took instructions, Mr Van der Merwe indicated that the applicant agrees to such an arrangement. Ms Nortjé, however, indicated that it is her instructions to request that two of the points in liminé raised by the respondent, lis pendens and res judicata, be argued, without going into the merits of the application, so as to at least utilize the available time. She further submitted that since it will be the end of the matter should one of the two points be upheld, there will be no necessity that the matter be postponed for purposes of the hearing of the merits thereof.

[5] Mr Van der Merwe expressed his reservations whether the said two points can be argued and adjudicated without at the same time dealing with the merits of the application.

[6] However, because both parties were present in court, one of which is from out of town, I ruled that the said two points in liminé be argued and should one not be upheld, I will postpone the application for two weeks calculated from the date of the hearing and

make a specific order regarding the filing of supplementary heads of argument.

The two points in liminé

[7] I have duly considered the arguments presented to me in respect of the points of res judicata and lis pendens. However, I have come to realize that I indeed cannot properly adjudicate the two points without also taking certain aspects of the merits of the application into consideration.

[8] In my view the application consequently needs to be postponed for the adjudication thereof in totality.

Order:

[9] I consequently make the following order:

1. The application is postponed to the opposed motion roll of Thursday, 22 February 2024, at 9h30.

2. The parties are requested and ordered to file supplementary heads of argument in order to address the issues in dispute in detail, especially the merits of the application, and other issues which they have not dealt with in detail in their respective concise heads of argument previously filed.

3. The aforesaid heads of argument are to be filed at court via email to h[...]@judiciary.org.za as follows:

3.1 The applicant on or before Monday, 19 February 2024, at 12h00; and

3.2 The respondent on or before Wednesday, 21 February 2024, at 15h00.

4. The applicant`s attorney of record is to ensure that the application papers in the court file, which will be available at the chambers of Van Zyl, J, be properly filed, paginated and indexed on or before Monday, 19 February 2024, at 15h00.

[5] The costs of 8 February 2024 stand over for later adjudication.

C. VAN ZYL, J

On behalf of the applicant: Adv. H. J. van der Merwe Instructed by: Symington & De Kok Attorneys

BLOEMFONTEIN On behalf of the 1st respondent: Adv. N. Nortjé Instructed by: McIntyre & Van der Post

BLOEMFONTEIN

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

No structured authorities are available for this judgment.

Refer to the full judgment and official source for citations that have not yet been extracted.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.