L.L v M.C.L (038505/2023) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1090 (28 September 2023)
- Citation
- [2023] ZAGPJHC 1090
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Panel
- Yacoob
- Case number
- 038505/2023
More details
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Panel
- Yacoob
- Case number
- 038505/2023
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence that the respondent's litigation was without merit or instituted solely to harass. While some applications and complaints may have been unsuccessful, the applicant did not demonstrate that all proceedings lacked merit, particularly those relating to the close corporation, which remain pending. The court emphasized that it cannot make a case for the applicant or advise on alternative relief. Accordingly, the application to declare the respondent a vexatious litigant was dismissed.
Court disposition
Application dismissed.
Orders
- The application to declare the respondent a vexatious litigant is dismissed.
02
Material facts
Parties
L.L
ApplicantM.C.L
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Declaration of Vexatious Litigant
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the respondent should be declared a vexatious litigant under section 2(1)(b) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act.
- 02
Whether the respondent's litigation and complaints against the applicant are without merit.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant contends that the respondent has repeatedly instituted legal proceedings and laid police complaints against her, including maintenance applications, access to children, and protection orders, all of which she claims are without merit and intended to harass her. She further alleges that the respondent's actions are retaliatory, following her own rape complaint against him. The applicant seeks an order declaring the respondent a vexatious litigant, preventing him from instituting further proceedings without leave of the court.
- Respondent
- The respondent maintains that his applications regarding maintenance, access to children, and the close corporation are legitimate and pending before the court. He denies that his actions are vexatious or without merit, and argues that the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to justify the relief sought.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Vexatious Proceedings Act, section 2(1)(b)
A declaration of vexatious litigant under section 2(1)(b) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act requires clear evidence that the litigation is without merit and instituted to harass.
- 02
General principles of South African civil procedure
The court cannot grant relief not sought in the notice of motion nor advise the applicant on alternative remedies.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence that the respondent's litigation was without merit or instituted solely to harass. While some applications and complaints may have been unsuccessful, the applicant did not demonstrate that all proceedings lacked merit, particularly those relating to the close corporation, which remain pending. The court emphasized that it cannot make a case for the applicant or advise on alternative relief. Accordingly, the application to declare the respondent a vexatious litigant was dismissed.
Obiter and limits
- If the respondent is harassing the applicant, this may form the basis for different relief, but such relief was not sought in this application.
- The court can only decide on the relief set out in the notice of motion and cannot advise the applicant on what she should seek.
Court disposition
Application dismissed.
- The application to declare the respondent a vexatious litigant is dismissed.
Source and reliance status
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Judgment
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
IN THE HIGH COURT
OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO: 038505/2023
DATE: 21-08-2023
NO REPORTABLE
NOT OF INTEREST TO OTHER
JUDGES
REVISED
In the matter between
L.L Applicant and M.C.L Respondent
J U D G M E N T
YACOOB, J:The parties are married to one another and are in the midst of divorce proceedings. The applicant brings an application that the respondent be declared a vexatious litigant in terms of section 2(1)(b) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act and ordering that no legal proceedings should be instituted by the respondent against her without leave of that court or a judge of the high court.
The applicant sets out a number of instances in which the respondent laid charges or complaints against her with the police. She also laid charges of rape against him and she contends that these charges against her were a result or in retaliation of the rape case. The applicant also complains that the respondent has brought applications for maintenance and for access to the children of the parties during the divorce which were without merit, and that there were applications for protection orders which were unsuccessful.
In addition, the applicant complains that the respondent has brought applications dealing with the close corporation which, according to the respondent, belongs to him and was transferred to the applicant to allow him to continue with his political appointment or his political office. The applications dealing with the close corporation have not yet been finalised, they are pending in the high court. The first is for the return of the close corporation to him and the other is for an interdict against the sale of property belonging to the close corporation. As far these two applications are concerned, the applicant does not place any evidence before the Court explaining why these applications are without merit.
As far as the complaints to the police are concerned, the applicant has already obtained an order interdicting any charges against her based on complaints by the respondent, pending a decision by the National Director of Public Prosecutions.
I am not satisfied that the applicant has established that she is entitled to the relief she has sought in the notice of motion, that the respondent be declared a vexatious litigant. If the respondent is harassing the applicant, that is may found a basis for different relief which has not been sought before this Court. The Court cannot make a case for the applicant, nor can the Court advise the applicant on what relief she should be seeking. The Court can only decide whether she has made out a case for the relief that she has set out in her notice of motion.
I am not satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated that the litigation instituted by the respondent was without merit and therefore that she has demonstrated that he should be declared a vexatious litigant.
For these reasons, the application is dismissed.
YACOOB, J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH
COURT
DATE: 28 September 2023
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.