L.L v N.L (2020/28541) [2020] ZAGPPHC 501 (10 July 2020)

L.L v N.L (2020/28541) [2020] ZAGPPHC 501 (10 July 2020)

The court found that the applicant had set out sufficient grounds for urgency, given the threats and history of conflict between the parties. However, the relief sought by the applicant, specifically the suspension of the respondent's contact rights and the appointment of a psychologist, amounted to an attempt to vary an existing order granted by Vally J in the Gauteng Local Division. The court held that while it has concurrent jurisdiction, the proper procedure for varying such an order is via Rule 43(6) in the court that granted the original order. The application to suspend contact rights was dismissed. The court granted interdicts restraining the respondent from entering the farm and...

Citation
[2020] ZAGPPHC 501
Parties
Applicant: L[….] L[….]; Respondent: N[….] L[….]
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 July 2020
Case Number
2020/28541
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interdict and Ancillary Relief
Outcome
Application partially granted: urgent relief and interdicts issued; suspension of contact rights and psychologist appointment refused.
Judges
Mokose
Legal Topics
Urgent Interdict, Contact Rights, Rule 43 Proceedings, Best Interests of Child
Family and Children Civil Procedure Urgent Interdict Contact Rights Rule 43 Proceedings Best Interests of Child

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

L[….] L[….]

Applicant

N[….] L[….]

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interdict and Ancillary Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application is urgent and warrants deviation from normal court rules.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's rights of contact with the minor child should be suspended pending investigation.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent should be interdicted from entering the farm and harassing occupants of the former matrimonial home.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had set out sufficient grounds for urgency, given the threats and history of conflict between the parties. However, the relief sought by the applicant, specifically the suspension of the respondent's contact rights and the appointment of a psychologist, amounted to an attempt to vary an existing order granted by Vally J in the Gauteng Local Division. The court held that while it has concurrent jurisdiction, the proper procedure for varying such an order is via Rule 43(6) in the court that granted the original order. The application to suspend contact rights was dismissed. The court granted interdicts restraining the respondent from entering the farm and...

Court Disposition

Application partially granted: urgent relief and interdicts issued; suspension of contact rights and psychologist appointment refused.

Orders

  • The matter is heard as one of urgency; condonation is granted for non-compliance with the rules and forms of court.
  • Prayer 2 of the Notice of Motion (suspension of contact rights) is dismissed.