JO v ZO (14941/2022) [2022] ZAGPJHC 655 (6 September 2022)

JO v ZO (14941/2022) [2022] ZAGPJHC 655 (6 September 2022)

The court found that the applicant's argument regarding the pro non scripto status of certain paragraphs of the previous order was flawed, as such orders remain binding until set aside by a competent court. The court clarified that its own order did not suspend the previous order but merely declared that the suspension occurred automatically under section 18(1) of the Superior Courts Act. The applicant's alternative argument that the order was interlocutory was rejected, as the court had previously addressed and dismissed this contention. The applicant's reliance on section 31 of the Children's Act was found to be a misinterpretation, and the existence of a rule 43 order prevented...

Citation
[2022] ZAGPJHC 655
Parties
Applicant: J [....] S [....] O [....] 1; Respondent: Z [....] I [....] O [....] 2
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 September 2022
Case Number
14941/2022
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Order Granted on 15 June 2022
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Swanepoel
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Interlocutory Order, Children's Act Section 31, Jurisdiction, Rule 43 Order
Civil Procedure Family and Children Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Order Children's Act Section 31 Jurisdiction Rule 43 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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J [....] S [....] O [....] 1

Applicant

Z [....] I [....] O [....] 2

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Order Granted on 15 June 2022

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a reasonable prospect that an appeal against the order of 15 June 2022 would be successful.
  2. 2 Whether paragraphs 2 and 6 of the order of Van Nieuwenhuizen AJ are pro non scripto and should be ignored.
  3. 3 Whether the order was interlocutory in nature.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's argument regarding the pro non scripto status of certain paragraphs of the previous order was flawed, as such orders remain binding until set aside by a competent court. The court clarified that its own order did not suspend the previous order but merely declared that the suspension occurred automatically under section 18(1) of the Superior Courts Act. The applicant's alternative argument that the order was interlocutory was rejected, as the court had previously addressed and dismissed this contention. The applicant's reliance on section 31 of the Children's Act was found to be a misinterpretation, and the existence of a rule 43 order prevented...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.