E v E; R v R; M v M (12583/17; 20739/18; 5954/18) [2019] ZAGPJHC 180; [2019] 3 All SA 519 (GJ); 2019 (5) SA 566 (GJ) (12 June 2019)

E v E; R v R; M v M (12583/17; 20739/18; 5954/18) [2019] ZAGPJHC 180; [2019] 3 All SA 519 (GJ); 2019 (5) SA 566 (GJ) (12 June 2019)

The court held that Rule 43 applications must be determined on the relevance and admissibility of the material presented, not on the length or prolixity of the affidavits and annexures. The court does not have discretion to dismiss applications solely for prolixity; instead, it may strike out irrelevant material and make appropriate cost orders. The paramount consideration is the best interests of minor children and the need for full and frank financial disclosure. The judgment proposes the mandatory filing of a financial disclosure form to promote transparency and facilitate early settlement. The practice manual should be amended to allow Rule 43 applications without arbitrary...

Citation
[2019] ZAGPJHC 180
Parties
Applicant: E; Respondent: E; Applicant: R; Respondent: R; Applicant: M; Respondent: M
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 June 2019
Case Number
12583/17; 20739/18; 5954/18
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Full Court Referral on Rule 43 Applications; Judgment Delivered After Hearing Arguments.
Outcome
The court granted the relief sought by the applicants in each case and issued a directive regarding the filing and content of Rule 43 applications.
Judges
Makume, Kollapen, Modiba
Legal Topics
Rule 43 Applications, Interim Maintenance, Contribution to Costs, Best Interests of Child, Financial Disclosure, Prolixity and Relevance
Family and Children Civil Procedure Rule 43 Applications Interim Maintenance Contribution to Costs Best Interests of Child Financial Disclosure Prolixity and Relevance

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

E

Applicant

E

Respondent

R

Applicant

R

Respondent

M

Applicant

M

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Full Court Referral on Rule 43 Applications; Judgment Delivered After Hearing Arguments.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the court have discretion to permit the filing of Rule 43 applications that depart from the strict provisions of Rule 43(2) and (3)?
  2. 2 Should the practice manual prescribe a specific form or length for Rule 43 applications, and would such a restriction withstand constitutional scrutiny?
  3. 3 What factors should guide the exercise of judicial discretion under Rule 43(5)?

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that Rule 43 applications must be determined on the relevance and admissibility of the material presented, not on the length or prolixity of the affidavits and annexures. The court does not have discretion to dismiss applications solely for prolixity; instead, it may strike out irrelevant material and make appropriate cost orders. The paramount consideration is the best interests of minor children and the need for full and frank financial disclosure. The judgment proposes the mandatory filing of a financial disclosure form to promote transparency and facilitate early settlement. The practice manual should be amended to allow Rule 43 applications without arbitrary...

Court Disposition

The court granted the relief sought by the applicants in each case and issued a directive regarding the filing and content of Rule 43 applications.

Orders

  • On receipt of Rule 43(2) and (3) affidavits, the allocated Judge may issue a directive under Rule 43(5) calling for supplementary affidavits with full and frank financial disclosure.
  • Such affidavits must be accompanied by a financial disclosure form, filed seven days before the hearing date.