Menge v Mebge (4233/2017) [2018] ZAFSHC 31 (29 March 2018)
- Citation
- [2018] ZAFSHC 31
- Status
- Order
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- Benade
- Case number
- 4233/2017
More details
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- Benade
- Case number
- 4233/2017
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 demonstrate any materially changed circumstances as required by Rule 43(6) for variation of the interim maintenance order. The application for postponement was also dismissed due to lack of sufficient grounds. The court emphasized that both parties remain entitled to approach the court once the Family Advocate report becomes available, as previously envisaged. Costs were not awarded to either party, reflecting the court's disapproval of the parties' conduct and concern for the welfare of the minor child.
Court disposition
Application dismissed for lack of materially changed circumstances; postponement application also dismissed; parties may approach court upon receipt of Family Advocate report; each party to bear own costs.
Orders
- The application is dismissed for lack of materially changed circumstances as contemplated in Rule 43(6).
- The application for postponement to 19 April 2018 is dismissed.
- The parties may approach the court when the Family Advocate report becomes available, as envisaged in the previous order.
- The Family Advocate is urged to expedite the report, and the applicant must provide the order and application papers to the Family Advocate.
- Each party to carry its own costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Deon Paul Menge
ApplicantEwertina Johanna Menge
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Urgent Application / Rule 43(6) Application for Variation of Interim Maintenance Order
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether there has been a material change in circumstances justifying variation of the existing Rule 43 order.
- 02
Whether the application for postponement should be granted.
- 03
Whether the parties may approach the court upon receipt of the Family Advocate report.
- 04
Who should bear the costs of the application.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant argued that circumstances had materially changed since the previous Rule 43 order, warranting a variation of the interim maintenance arrangements. He sought either a variation or postponement pending the Family Advocate report.
- Respondent
- The respondent contended that no material change in circumstances had occurred and opposed both the variation and the postponement. She maintained that the existing order should remain until the Family Advocate report is available.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Uniform Rule 43(6)
A Rule 43(6) application for variation requires proof of materially changed circumstances since the original order.
- 02
General principles of civil procedure
The court retains discretion to postpone proceedings but will not do so absent compelling reasons.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate any materially changed circumstances as required by Rule 43(6) for variation of the interim maintenance order. The application for postponement was also dismissed due to lack of sufficient grounds. The court emphasized that both parties remain entitled to approach the court once the Family Advocate report becomes available, as previously envisaged. Costs were not awarded to either party, reflecting the court's disapproval of the parties' conduct and concern for the welfare of the minor child.
Obiter and limits
- The court expressed considerable disquiet regarding the conduct of both parties and the impact on their son, Paul.
- The Family Advocate is urged to expedite the report, which was overdue.
Court disposition
Application dismissed for lack of materially changed circumstances; postponement application also dismissed; parties may approach court upon receipt of Family Advocate report; each party to bear own costs.
- The application is dismissed for lack of materially changed circumstances as contemplated in Rule 43(6).
- The application for postponement to 19 April 2018 is dismissed.
- The parties may approach the court when the Family Advocate report becomes available, as envisaged in the previous order.
- The Family Advocate is urged to expedite the report, and the applicant must provide the order and application papers to the Family Advocate.
- Each party to carry its own costs.
Source and reliance status
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
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.
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Order
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,
FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
Reportable:
YES/NO
Of Interest to other Judges: YES/NO
Circulate to Magistrates: YES/NO
Case number: 4233/2017
In the matter between:
DEON
PAUL
MENGE
Applicant
and
EWERTINA
JOHANNA
MENGE
Respondent
HEARD ON: 22 MARCH 2018
JUDGMENT BY: BENADE, AJ
DELIVERED ON: 29 MARCH 2018
ORDER RULE 43(6)
[1] Having perused the papers and hearing argument by counsel for the parties the following orders are issued:
1. The application is dismissed for lack of materially changed circumstances, properly so, as contemplated in Rule 43(6).
2. The application from the bar for postponement to 19 April 2018 is also dismissed.
3. The parties are still free to approach the court when the Family Advocate report becomes available, as implicitly envisaged in paragraph 3 of the 14 September 2017 Rule 43 order.
3.1 The family advocate is urged to expedite the aforementioned report which was due on 20 October 2017. The applicant is requested to make this order and the application papers available to the Family Advocate.
4. Each party to carry its own costs (as a mark of disapproval and considerable disquiet on the side of the court regarding the conduct
of the parties and the position in which they place the son Paul, which led to this application).
BY
ORDER
_____
REGISTRAR
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.