G v G (23735/2016) [2016] ZAGPJHC 183 (13 July 2016)

G v G (23735/2016) [2016] ZAGPJHC 183 (13 July 2016)

The court found that the respondent's plea of res judicata could not be upheld in respect of the three items making up R23258, as these specific claims were not previously adjudicated by Matojane, J. The applicant's papers, although poorly drafted and lacking compliance with court rules, established that the amounts were properly incurred for the children's benefit and were not disputed by the respondent in an answering affidavit. Accordingly, judgment was entered for the applicant for R23258. No costs order was made due to the applicant's self-representation and the inadequacy of the papers.

Citation
[2016] ZAGPJHC 183
Parties
Applicant: G, A C; Respondent: G, D M
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 July 2016
Case Number
23735/2016
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Relief Pending Divorce Action
Outcome
Judgment entered in favour of the applicant for R23258; no order as to costs.
Judges
WHG van der Linde
Legal Topics
Rule 43 Maintenance, Interim Relief, Res Judicata, Arrear Maintenance
Family and Children Rule 43 Maintenance Interim Relief Res Judicata Arrear Maintenance

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

G, A C

Applicant

G, D M

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interim Relief Pending Divorce Action

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to payment of R23258 for expenses incurred for the children, not previously adjudicated.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's plea of res judicata bars the applicant's claim for these amounts.
  3. 3 Whether a costs order should be made in favour of the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's plea of res judicata could not be upheld in respect of the three items making up R23258, as these specific claims were not previously adjudicated by Matojane, J. The applicant's papers, although poorly drafted and lacking compliance with court rules, established that the amounts were properly incurred for the children's benefit and were not disputed by the respondent in an answering affidavit. Accordingly, judgment was entered for the applicant for R23258. No costs order was made due to the applicant's self-representation and the inadequacy of the papers.

Court Disposition

Judgment entered in favour of the applicant for R23258; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Judgment is entered in favour of the applicant against the respondent for R23258.
  • No order as to costs will issue.