Herman v Von Oppel (9109/2007) [2008] ZAWCHC 175 (17 April 2008)

Herman v Von Oppel (9109/2007) [2008] ZAWCHC 175 (17 April 2008)

The court found that the matter was no longer urgent or semi-urgent, as all genuine urgency had dissipated after the order regarding the removal of the children to Germany was granted on 18 July 2007. Subsequent disputes between the parties were purely commercial and did not justify expedited treatment. Both parties had abused the urgent process of the court by improperly securing a place on the semi-urgent roll, thereby gaining unfair advantage over other litigants. The absence of heads of argument and late delivery of papers further demonstrated procedural non-compliance. As a result, the matter was struck off the roll, and the court ordered that neither party may recover costs from the...

Citation
[2008] ZAWCHC 175
Parties
Applicant: Angelika Herman; Respondent: Ulrich Otto Von Oppel
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 April 2008
Case Number
9109/2007
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Striking Off the Roll Due to Lack of Urgency and Procedural Non Compliance
Outcome
Matter struck off the roll due to lack of urgency and procedural abuse.
Judges
Thring
Legal Topics
Abuse of Urgent Roll, Maintenance Enforcement, Condictio Indebiti, Costs Order, Court Notice Compliance
Civil Procedure Family and Children Abuse of Urgent Roll Maintenance Enforcement Condictio Indebiti Costs Order Court Notice Compliance

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Angelika Herman

Applicant

Ulrich Otto Von Oppel

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Striking Off the Roll Due to Lack of Urgency and Procedural Non Compliance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the matter before the court is urgent or semi-urgent and justifies placement on the semi-urgent roll.
  2. 2 Whether the parties have abused the urgent process of the court.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to relief regarding maintenance payments and alleged arrears.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the matter was no longer urgent or semi-urgent, as all genuine urgency had dissipated after the order regarding the removal of the children to Germany was granted on 18 July 2007. Subsequent disputes between the parties were purely commercial and did not justify expedited treatment. Both parties had abused the urgent process of the court by improperly securing a place on the semi-urgent roll, thereby gaining unfair advantage over other litigants. The absence of heads of argument and late delivery of papers further demonstrated procedural non-compliance. As a result, the matter was struck off the roll, and the court ordered that neither party may recover costs from the...

Court Disposition

Matter struck off the roll due to lack of urgency and procedural abuse.

Orders

  • The matter is struck off the roll.
  • When and if the matter is re-enrolled, the parties must comply strictly with the requirements of Court Notice 101.