Du Preez v Du Preez (16043/2008) [2008] ZAGPHC 334 (24 October 2008)

Du Preez v Du Preez (16043/2008) [2008] ZAGPHC 334 (24 October 2008)

The court found that both parties, aided by their legal representatives, had engaged in excessive prolixity in their Rule 43 papers, which is an abuse of process and contrary to the spirit and purpose of Rule 43. The applicant's previous Rule 43 application had already been dismissed for prolixity, yet she failed to heed the lesson and again submitted unnecessarily verbose affidavits and annexures. The respondent's reply, though less extensive, was also unnecessarily verbose. The court held that the circumstances were not exceptional enough to justify the inordinate length of the papers. Furthermore, the applicant failed to disclose material information regarding her income, specifically...

Citation
[2008] ZAGPHC 334
Parties
Applicant: Dina Maria Christina Du Preez; Respondent: Wynand Coenraad Jacobus Du Preez
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 October 2008
Case Number
16043/2008
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Rule 43 Application for Interim Maintenance and Ancillary Relief Pendente Lite
Outcome
Application struck off the roll due to prolixity and material non-disclosure; no order as to costs; neither party to be charged fees by their attorneys.
Judges
Murphy
Legal Topics
Rule 43 Proceedings, Maintenance Pendente Lite, Prolixity and Abuse of Process, Good Faith Disclosure, Costs Orders
Family and Children Civil Procedure Rule 43 Proceedings Maintenance Pendente Lite Prolixity and Abuse of Process Good Faith Disclosure Costs Orders

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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dina Maria Christina Du Preez

Applicant

Wynand Coenraad Jacobus Du Preez

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Rule 43 Application for Interim Maintenance and Ancillary Relief Pendente Lite

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's Rule 43 application should be struck off the roll due to prolixity and abuse of process.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant acted with utmost good faith and made full disclosure of her financial affairs.
  3. 3 Whether relief should be denied for material non-disclosure and lack of clean hands.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that both parties, aided by their legal representatives, had engaged in excessive prolixity in their Rule 43 papers, which is an abuse of process and contrary to the spirit and purpose of Rule 43. The applicant's previous Rule 43 application had already been dismissed for prolixity, yet she failed to heed the lesson and again submitted unnecessarily verbose affidavits and annexures. The respondent's reply, though less extensive, was also unnecessarily verbose. The court held that the circumstances were not exceptional enough to justify the inordinate length of the papers. Furthermore, the applicant failed to disclose material information regarding her income, specifically...

Court Disposition

Application struck off the roll due to prolixity and material non-disclosure; no order as to costs; neither party to be charged fees by their attorneys.

Orders

  • The matter is struck off the roll.
  • There is no order as to costs.