F.I v A.P (2021/13610) [2021] ZAGPJHC 119 (5 August 2021)

F.I v A.P (2021/13610) [2021] ZAGPJHC 119 (5 August 2021)

The court condoned the short notice given to the respondent as there was no prejudice. The application to introduce a supplementary affidavit was refused, as the circumstances did not justify its admission at this stage, but the applicant may seek leave to file such an affidavit after financial disclosure is made. The court held that Rule 43 applies because the applicant has instituted an action under the Divorce Act, and the SCA's decision in Women's Legal Centre Trust does not preclude the application, as its order of invalidity is not yet in force pending confirmation by the Constitutional Court. The respondent is required to make financial disclosure in terms of E v E before the Rule...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPJHC 119
Parties
Applicant: F[....] I[....]; Respondent: A[....] P[....]
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 August 2021
Case Number
2021/13610
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Rule 43 Application; Preliminary Points and Postponement
Outcome
The respondent's point in limine is dismissed. The application is postponed sine die. The respondent is directed to file his Financial Disclosure Form within 10 days. Costs are reserved.
Judges
S D J Wilson
Legal Topics
Rule 43 Applications, Islamic Marriage Recognition, Financial Disclosure, Interim Relief, Divorce Act Applicability
Family and Children Civil Procedure Rule 43 Applications Islamic Marriage Recognition Financial Disclosure Interim Relief Divorce Act Applicability

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

F[....] I[....]

Applicant

A[....] P[....]

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Rule 43 Application; Preliminary Points and Postponement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent was given sufficient notice of the hearing as required by Rule 43(4).
  2. 2 Whether the applicant should be permitted to introduce a supplementary affidavit.
  3. 3 Whether Rule 43 applies to parties married under Islamic law whose marriage was dissolved prior to the SCA decision in Women's Legal Centre Trust.

Ratio Decidendi

The court condoned the short notice given to the respondent as there was no prejudice. The application to introduce a supplementary affidavit was refused, as the circumstances did not justify its admission at this stage, but the applicant may seek leave to file such an affidavit after financial disclosure is made. The court held that Rule 43 applies because the applicant has instituted an action under the Divorce Act, and the SCA's decision in Women's Legal Centre Trust does not preclude the application, as its order of invalidity is not yet in force pending confirmation by the Constitutional Court. The respondent is required to make financial disclosure in terms of E v E before the Rule...

Court Disposition

The respondent's point in limine is dismissed. The application is postponed sine die. The respondent is directed to file his Financial Disclosure Form within 10 days. Costs are reserved.

Orders

  • The respondent's point in limine is dismissed.
  • The application is postponed sine die.