E.M.W v S.W (26912/2017) [2023] ZAGPJHC 710 (15 June 2023)

E.M.W v S.W (26912/2017) [2023] ZAGPJHC 710 (15 June 2023)

The court found that the applicant failed to comply with the rules relating to urgency. The applicant was aware of the property being listed for sale months before launching the application and engaged in extended correspondence rather than taking prompt legal action. The delay was not adequately explained, and the urgency was deemed self-created. The court held that the applicant could be afforded substantial redress at a hearing in due course and that the matter did not warrant urgent attention. Consequently, the application was struck off the roll for lack of urgency. Regarding costs, the court determined that the interests of justice justified a deviation from the general rule,...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPJHC 710
Parties
Applicant: E M W; Respondent: S W
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 June 2023
Case Number
26912/2017
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Interdict Application Prior to Final Divorce Proceedings
Outcome
Application struck off the roll for lack of urgency; each party to pay their own costs.
Judges
Ndlokovane
Legal Topics
Interim Interdict, Divorce Proceedings, Self Created Urgency, Costs Order, Ante Nuptial Contract
Civil Procedure Family and Children Interim Interdict Divorce Proceedings Self Created Urgency Costs Order Ante Nuptial Contract

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

E M W

Applicant

S W

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interim Interdict Application Prior to Final Divorce Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's application for interim relief should be heard as urgent.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant will be afforded substantial redress at a hearing in due course.
  3. 3 Whether the urgency claimed by the applicant is self-created.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to comply with the rules relating to urgency. The applicant was aware of the property being listed for sale months before launching the application and engaged in extended correspondence rather than taking prompt legal action. The delay was not adequately explained, and the urgency was deemed self-created. The court held that the applicant could be afforded substantial redress at a hearing in due course and that the matter did not warrant urgent attention. Consequently, the application was struck off the roll for lack of urgency. Regarding costs, the court determined that the interests of justice justified a deviation from the general rule,...

Court Disposition

Application struck off the roll for lack of urgency; each party to pay their own costs.

Orders

  • The applicant’s urgent application is struck off the roll for lack of urgency.
  • Each party pays his or her own costs.