G B v M B (037761/19) [2019] ZAGPJHC 514 (3 December 2019)

G B v M B (037761/19) [2019] ZAGPJHC 514 (3 December 2019)

The court found that the applicant failed to make out a case for urgency. The applicant did not provide sufficient explanation for the delay in bringing the application after learning of the respondent's change of position, nor did he demonstrate what harm or prejudice the children would suffer if the matter was heard in the ordinary course. The urgency was deemed self-created, and the requirements for urgent relief were not satisfied. Consequently, the application was struck off the roll for lack of urgency.

Citation
[2019] ZAGPJHC 514
Parties
Applicant: G B; Respondent: M B
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 December 2019
Case Number
037761/19
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Strike From Roll for Lack of Urgency
Outcome
Application struck off the roll for lack of urgency; costs awarded against the applicant.
Judges
E Molahlehi
Legal Topics
Child Relocation, Best Interests of the Child, Urgency in Motion Proceedings
Family and Children Civil Procedure Child Relocation Best Interests of the Child Urgency in Motion Proceedings

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

G B

Applicant

M B

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Strike From Roll for Lack of Urgency

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for the relocation of the children to the Netherlands should be heard as an urgent matter.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has established sufficient urgency to justify deviation from the normal court process.
  3. 3 Whether the children would suffer harm or prejudice if the application was heard in the ordinary course.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to make out a case for urgency. The applicant did not provide sufficient explanation for the delay in bringing the application after learning of the respondent's change of position, nor did he demonstrate what harm or prejudice the children would suffer if the matter was heard in the ordinary course. The urgency was deemed self-created, and the requirements for urgent relief were not satisfied. Consequently, the application was struck off the roll for lack of urgency.

Court Disposition

Application struck off the roll for lack of urgency; costs awarded against the applicant.

Orders

  • The application is struck off the roll for lack of urgency.
  • The applicant is to pay the costs of the application.