J.M v N.C (2023/00100) [2024] ZAGPJHC 762 (16 August 2024)

J.M v N.C (2023/00100) [2024] ZAGPJHC 762 (16 August 2024)

The court found that the respondent failed to provide credible evidence of domicile or residence in South Africa. Her assertions were unsupported, contradicted by her own communications, and lacked necessary detail regarding her employment, marital status, and family circumstances. The redacted visa did not substantiate her claim of temporary residence in the USA, and her failure to disclose relevant facts undermined her credibility. The applicant discharged the burden of proving that the respondent is not an incola of South Africa, and thus a peregrinus. The reconsideration application was dismissed, and costs awarded to the applicant.

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 762
Parties
Applicant: J. Mahomed; Respondent: N.L.J. C[...]
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 August 2024
Case Number
2023/00100
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Reconsideration Under Rule 6(12)(c)
Outcome
Reconsideration application dismissed; costs awarded to the applicant.
Judges
N.J. Graves
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Peregrinus, Attachment of Assets, Reconsideration Application, Domicile, Legal Fees Claim
Civil Procedure Jurisdiction Peregrinus Attachment of Assets Reconsideration Application Domicile Legal Fees Claim

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J. Mahomed

Applicant

N.L.J. C[...]

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Reconsideration Under Rule 6(12)(c)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is a peregrinus or incola of South Africa for jurisdictional purposes.
  2. 2 Whether the attachment of assets and leave to sue by edictal citation were properly granted.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent provided credible evidence of domicile or residence in South Africa.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent failed to provide credible evidence of domicile or residence in South Africa. Her assertions were unsupported, contradicted by her own communications, and lacked necessary detail regarding her employment, marital status, and family circumstances. The redacted visa did not substantiate her claim of temporary residence in the USA, and her failure to disclose relevant facts undermined her credibility. The applicant discharged the burden of proving that the respondent is not an incola of South Africa, and thus a peregrinus. The reconsideration application was dismissed, and costs awarded to the applicant.

Court Disposition

Reconsideration application dismissed; costs awarded to the applicant.

Orders

  • The reconsideration application by the respondent to vary the order granted by Senyatsi J on 9 March 2023 is dismissed.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the application to set aside on the party-and-party scale until 11 April 2024, and from 12 April 2024 on Scale C as set out in Uniform Rule 69.