Menge v Mebge (4233/2017) [2018] ZAFSHC 31 (29 March 2018)

Menge v Mebge (4233/2017) [2018] ZAFSHC 31 (29 March 2018)

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.

Citation
[2018] ZAFSHC 31
Parties
Applicant: Deon Paul Menge; Respondent: Ewertina Johanna Menge
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 March 2018
Case Number
4233/2017
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Rule 43(6) Application for Variation of Interim Maintenance Order
Outcome
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.
Judges
Benade
Legal Topics
Rule 43 Variation, Interim Maintenance, Family Advocate Report
Family and Children Rule 43 Variation Interim Maintenance Family Advocate Report

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Deon Paul Menge

Applicant

Ewertina Johanna Menge

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Rule 43(6) Application for Variation of Interim Maintenance Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there has been a material change in circumstances justifying variation of the existing Rule 43 order.
  2. 2 Whether the application for postponement should be granted.
  3. 3 Whether the parties may approach the court upon receipt of the Family Advocate report.

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.

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.