khoza v Motsepe and Another (15078/12) [2013] ZAGPJHC 162 (22 May 2013)

khoza v Motsepe and Another (15078/12) [2013] ZAGPJHC 162 (22 May 2013)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide credible evidence of payment for the periods in question and did not satisfy the requirements for interim relief. The late application to amend the notice of motion was prejudicial to the first respondent and could not be allowed without injustice. The applicant, as senior counsel, was held to a higher standard and failed to meet procedural requirements. The balance of convenience did not favour the applicant, who had not paid the amounts due and had not established a prima facie right to the relief sought. The application for amendment and interim relief was dismissed, and costs were awarded against the applicant.

Citation
[2013] ZAGPJHC 162
Parties
Applicant: Modise Geoffrey Khoza; Respondent: Reabetsoe Lucia Motsepe; Respondent: Sheriff Johannesburg Central
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 May 2013
Case Number
15078/12
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Interim Relief and Amendment of Notice of Motion
Outcome
Application for amendment of notice of motion and interim relief dismissed with costs awarded against the applicant.
Judges
TS Madima
Legal Topics
Interim Interdict, Rule 43 Proceedings, Maintenance Enforcement, Amendment of Pleadings
Civil Procedure Family and Children Interim Interdict Rule 43 Proceedings Maintenance Enforcement Amendment of Pleadings

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Modise Geoffrey Khoza

Applicant

Reabetsoe Lucia Motsepe

Respondent

Sheriff Johannesburg Central

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Interim Relief and Amendment of Notice of Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to interim relief restraining execution of writs pending reconciliation of payments made to the first respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant should be granted leave to amend the notice of motion at a late stage.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has satisfied the requirements for interim interdict relief.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide credible evidence of payment for the periods in question and did not satisfy the requirements for interim relief. The late application to amend the notice of motion was prejudicial to the first respondent and could not be allowed without injustice. The applicant, as senior counsel, was held to a higher standard and failed to meet procedural requirements. The balance of convenience did not favour the applicant, who had not paid the amounts due and had not established a prima facie right to the relief sought. The application for amendment and interim relief was dismissed, and costs were awarded against the applicant.

Court Disposition

Application for amendment of notice of motion and interim relief dismissed with costs awarded against the applicant.

Orders

  • The application for amendment of the notice of motion is dismissed.
  • The application for interim relief is dismissed.