M.M (Born M) v T.P.M and Others (M204/2018) [2019] ZANWHC 26 (2 May 2019)

M.M (Born M) v T.P.M and Others (M204/2018) [2019] ZANWHC 26 (2 May 2019)

The court found that the applicant’s grounds for review were without merit. The reconsideration order by the second respondent was made in accordance with section 46(2) of the Children’s Act, after both parties were present and submissions were heard. The applicant’s argument that the matter should have been referred to a social worker under section 151 and 155 was misplaced, as the irregularity originated from the interim order granted by the third respondent, not the reconsideration order. The admission of the answering affidavit by email was proper in the context of urgent proceedings. The Children’s Court has statutory authority to award costs. The applicant’s conduct constituted an...

Citation
[2019] ZANWHC 26
Parties
Applicant: M[...] M[…] (Born M[…]); Respondent: T[...] P[…] M[…]; Respondent: Magistrate Mamabolo NO; Respondent: Magistrate Rampe NO
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 May 2019
Case Number
M204/2018
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment After Hearing and Reserved Reasons
Outcome
Application dismissed with punitive costs order against the applicant.
Judges
A.M. Kgoele, Gura
Legal Topics
Children S Act, Review of Magistrates Court Order, Best Interests of Child, Costs in Children S Court, Forum Shopping
Family and Children Civil Procedure Children S Act Review of Magistrates Court Order Best Interests of Child Costs in Children S Court Forum Shopping

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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M[...] M[…] (Born M[…])

Applicant

T[...] P[…] M[…]

Respondent

Magistrate Mamabolo NO

Respondent

Magistrate Rampe NO

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment After Hearing and Reserved Reasons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second respondent's reconsideration order in the Children's Court was irregular and reviewable.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was entitled to have the matter referred to a social worker under section 151 and 155 of the Children's Act.
  3. 3 Whether the admission of the answering affidavit by email constituted a procedural irregularity.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant’s grounds for review were without merit. The reconsideration order by the second respondent was made in accordance with section 46(2) of the Children’s Act, after both parties were present and submissions were heard. The applicant’s argument that the matter should have been referred to a social worker under section 151 and 155 was misplaced, as the irregularity originated from the interim order granted by the third respondent, not the reconsideration order. The admission of the answering affidavit by email was proper in the context of urgent proceedings. The Children’s Court has statutory authority to award costs. The applicant’s conduct constituted an...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with punitive costs order against the applicant.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The status quo in terms of the Children’s Court order of 28 October 2015 remains pending finalisation of the divorce proceedings under case number 3/2015 or until varied by a competent court.