H v H (2020/44450) [2022] ZAGPJHC 832 (25 October 2022)

H v H (2020/44450) [2022] ZAGPJHC 832 (25 October 2022)

The court found that the applicant failed to establish urgency, as the allegations were insufficient and did not demonstrate real or immediate prejudice. The expiry of the respondent's undertaking not to execute the Victor J order did not create urgency. The application was therefore struck off the roll for lack of urgency. Given the circumstances, the court held it would be unfair to order the applicant to pay the respondent's costs for the hearing, and thus ordered each party to bear their own costs.

Citation
[2022] ZAGPJHC 832
Parties
Applicant: M [....] H [....]; Respondent: S [....] 1 S [....] 2-H [....]
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 October 2022
Case Number
2020/44450
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Strike Off for Lack of Urgency
Outcome
Application struck off the roll for lack of urgency; each party to bear their own costs for the hearing of 25 October 2022.
Judges
Wright
Legal Topics
Rule 43 Proceedings, Interim Custody, Maintenance, Urgent Application, Costs Order
Family and Children Civil Procedure Rule 43 Proceedings Interim Custody Maintenance Urgent Application Costs Order

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M [....] H [....]

Applicant

S [....] 1 S [....] 2-H [....]

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Strike Off for Lack of Urgency

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application to set aside the Victor J order is urgent.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has established sufficient grounds for urgency.
  3. 3 Whether costs should be awarded against the applicant for today's hearing.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to establish urgency, as the allegations were insufficient and did not demonstrate real or immediate prejudice. The expiry of the respondent's undertaking not to execute the Victor J order did not create urgency. The application was therefore struck off the roll for lack of urgency. Given the circumstances, the court held it would be unfair to order the applicant to pay the respondent's costs for the hearing, and thus ordered each party to bear their own costs.

Court Disposition

Application struck off the roll for lack of urgency; each party to bear their own costs for the hearing of 25 October 2022.

Orders

  • The application is struck off the roll for lack of urgency.
  • The parties are to carry their own costs relating to the hearing of 25 October 2022.