J G v R G (2019/22499) [2019] ZAGPJHC 253 (19 July 2019)

J G v R G (2019/22499) [2019] ZAGPJHC 253 (19 July 2019)

The court found that the urgency of the application was self-created, as the applicant delayed launching proceedings for approximately sixteen months after first becoming aware of the respondent's alleged contempt. The applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for this delay and did not meet the threshold required by Rule 6(12)(b) to justify urgency. Consequently, the application was struck from the roll. Regarding costs, the court exercised its discretion, considering the interests of minor children, and ordered that each party bear their own costs.

Citation
[2019] ZAGPJHC 253
Parties
Applicant: J G; Respondent: R G
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 July 2019
Case Number
2019/22499
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Strike From the Roll
Outcome
Application struck from the roll for lack of urgency; no order as to costs.
Judges
L R Adams
Legal Topics
Rule 43 Maintenance, Contempt of Court, Urgency, Costs Award
Family and Children Civil Procedure Rule 43 Maintenance Contempt of Court Urgency Costs Award

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 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J G

Applicant

R G

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Strike From the Roll

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's urgent application for contempt of a Rule 43 order is genuinely urgent.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has complied with Rule 6(12)(b) regarding urgency.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent is in contempt of the Rule 43 maintenance order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the urgency of the application was self-created, as the applicant delayed launching proceedings for approximately sixteen months after first becoming aware of the respondent's alleged contempt. The applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for this delay and did not meet the threshold required by Rule 6(12)(b) to justify urgency. Consequently, the application was struck from the roll. Regarding costs, the court exercised its discretion, considering the interests of minor children, and ordered that each party bear their own costs.

Court Disposition

Application struck from the roll for lack of urgency; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The applicant’s urgent application is struck from the roll.
  • Each party shall bear her or his own costs of this urgent application.