J.S v Z.M (2024/090962) [2024] ZAGPJHC 859 (29 August 2024)

J.S v Z.M (2024/090962) [2024] ZAGPJHC 859 (29 August 2024)

The court found that at the time the application was instituted, both the respondent and the minor child had already relocated to KwaZulu Natal and were no longer ordinarily resident within the jurisdiction of the South Gauteng High Court. Jurisdiction is determined by residence at the time of institution of proceedings, not by domicile or previous residence. The applicant was notified of the respondent’s relocation prior to proceeding but chose to continue regardless. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter and struck the application from the roll. The cost order reflects the applicant’s decision to proceed after being informed of the jurisdictional issue.

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 859
Parties
Applicant: J[...] S[...]; Respondent: Z[...] M[...]
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 August 2024
Case Number
2024/090962
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Struck Off Roll for Lack of Jurisdiction
Outcome
Application struck from the roll for lack of jurisdiction. Costs apportioned as specified.
Judges
Du Plessis
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of High Court, Urgent Applications, Care and Contact, Parental Alienation
Family and Children Civil Procedure Jurisdiction of High Court Urgent Applications Care and Contact Parental Alienation

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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

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

Applicant

Z[...] M[...]

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Struck Off Roll for Lack of Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the South Gauteng High Court have jurisdiction over the matter concerning the minor child given the respondent's relocation?
  2. 2 Is the applicant entitled to proceed with the urgent application after being notified of the respondent's change of residence?
  3. 3 What is the appropriate cost order in light of the jurisdictional challenge and parties' conduct?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that at the time the application was instituted, both the respondent and the minor child had already relocated to KwaZulu Natal and were no longer ordinarily resident within the jurisdiction of the South Gauteng High Court. Jurisdiction is determined by residence at the time of institution of proceedings, not by domicile or previous residence. The applicant was notified of the respondent’s relocation prior to proceeding but chose to continue regardless. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter and struck the application from the roll. The cost order reflects the applicant’s decision to proceed after being informed of the jurisdictional issue.

Court Disposition

Application struck from the roll for lack of jurisdiction. Costs apportioned as specified.

Orders

  • The matter is struck from the roll for lack of jurisdiction.
  • The parties are to pay their own costs up to the serving of the urgent application.