L v L (40691/2016) [2016] ZAGPJHC 370 (12 December 2016)

L v L (40691/2016) [2016] ZAGPJHC 370 (12 December 2016)

The court held that the requirements and practice directives for urgent applications do apply to reconsideration applications under rule 6(12)(c), and that the respondent's delay and failure to file his answering affidavit timeously caused inconvenience and prejudice, but not to an extent warranting striking the matter from the roll. The court found that the applicant had established a prima facie right to protect the accrual against dissipation, a well-grounded apprehension of irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured her. The respondent's objections based on material non-disclosure and non-joinder were rejected, as the agreement regarding service did not extend to...

Citation
[2016] ZAGPJHC 370
Parties
Applicant: A. L.; Respondent: W. L.
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 December 2016
Case Number
40691/2016
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Reconsideration of Ex Parte Interim Interdict
Outcome
The ex parte interim interdict granted by Makume J is confirmed, subject to modification excluding assets not subject to accrual. Costs are reserved except for wasted costs of 28 November 2016, which are to be borne by the respondent.
Judges
L T Modiba
Legal Topics
Matrimonial Property Act, Interim Interdict, Accrual System, Urgent Application Procedure, Non Joinder, Material Non Disclosure
Family and Children Civil Procedure Matrimonial Property Act Interim Interdict Accrual System Urgent Application Procedure Non Joinder Material Non Disclosure

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 6 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A. L.

Applicant

W. L.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Reconsideration of Ex Parte Interim Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the requirements for bringing urgent applications and the practice directives apply to a reconsideration application under rule 6(12)(c).
  2. 2 Whether the ex parte interim interdict granted against the respondent should be reconsidered and set aside due to alleged material non-disclosure and non-joinder.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant met the requirements for an interim interdict under South African law.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the requirements and practice directives for urgent applications do apply to reconsideration applications under rule 6(12)(c), and that the respondent's delay and failure to file his answering affidavit timeously caused inconvenience and prejudice, but not to an extent warranting striking the matter from the roll. The court found that the applicant had established a prima facie right to protect the accrual against dissipation, a well-grounded apprehension of irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured her. The respondent's objections based on material non-disclosure and non-joinder were rejected, as the agreement regarding service did not extend to...

Court Disposition

The ex parte interim interdict granted by Makume J is confirmed, subject to modification excluding assets not subject to accrual. Costs are reserved except for wasted costs of 28 November 2016, which are to be borne by the respondent.

Orders

  • Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the order granted by Makume J on 17 November 2016 are confirmed.
  • Paragraph 3 of the order granted by Makume J on 17 November 2016 does not extend to assets excluded from the accrual in terms of the ante nuptial contract concluded between the parties on 14 December 1999 and registered at the Johannesburg Deeds Registry on 22 December 1999 under reference number: H5996/99.