J.B and Another v J.L.S and Another (22199/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1367 (31 December 2024)

J.B and Another v J.L.S and Another (22199/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1367 (31 December 2024)

The court found that the first applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of a material change in circumstances since the previous Rule 43 order. The applicant did not annex relevant financial statements or bank records covering the period after the order, and his disclosures were incomplete. The court emphasized the duty of utmost good faith and full disclosure in Rule 43 applications, as established in Du Preez v Du Preez. The material non-disclosures meant the applicant was not before the court with clean hands, justifying refusal of the relief sought. The court exercised its discretion to allow the supplementary affidavits but dismissed the application for variation. Costs were...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPPHC 1367
Parties
Applicant: J[...] B[...]; Applicant: Julius Swart Promotions CC; Respondent: J[...] L[...] S[...]; Respondent: The Sheriff, Sandton South
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 December 2024
Case Number
22199/2022
Procedural Posture
Variation Application / Opposed Application for Variation of Rule 43 Order Under Rule 43(6)
Outcome
Application dismissed. Supplementary affidavits allowed. Costs to be costs in the cause.
Judges
T E Joyini
Legal Topics
Rule 43 Variation, Maintenance Pendente Lite, Material Change in Circumstances, Interim Relief, Costs in the Cause
Family and Children Civil Procedure Rule 43 Variation Maintenance Pendente Lite Material Change in Circumstances Interim Relief Costs in the Cause

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J[...] B[...]

Applicant

Julius Swart Promotions CC

Applicant

J[...] L[...] S[...]

Respondent

The Sheriff, Sandton South

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Variation Application / Opposed Application for Variation of Rule 43 Order Under Rule 43(6)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first applicant has demonstrated a material change in circumstances justifying a variation of the previous Rule 43 order.
  2. 2 Whether the first applicant's supplementary affidavit and the first respondent's further answering affidavit should be allowed.
  3. 3 Whether the application is fatally defective due to material non-disclosures by the first applicant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the first applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of a material change in circumstances since the previous Rule 43 order. The applicant did not annex relevant financial statements or bank records covering the period after the order, and his disclosures were incomplete. The court emphasized the duty of utmost good faith and full disclosure in Rule 43 applications, as established in Du Preez v Du Preez. The material non-disclosures meant the applicant was not before the court with clean hands, justifying refusal of the relief sought. The court exercised its discretion to allow the supplementary affidavits but dismissed the application for variation. Costs were...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed. Supplementary affidavits allowed. Costs to be costs in the cause.

Orders

  • Leave is granted for the filing of the first applicant's supplementary affidavit and the first respondent's further answering affidavit.
  • The application of the first and second applicants is dismissed.