MM v NM and Others (15133/23P) [2023] ZAKZPHC 117 (18 October 2023)

MM v NM and Others (15133/23P) [2023] ZAKZPHC 117 (18 October 2023)

The court found that the applicant failed to establish urgency as required by Uniform Rule 6(12). The delay of approximately twelve weeks between the child’s removal from St. Charles College and the filing of the urgent application was unexplained and rendered the urgency self-created. The child had already...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] ZAKZPHC 117
Parties
Applicant: MM; Respondent: NM; Respondent: The Office of the Family Advocate; Respondent: St. Charles College; Respondent: Alston Primary School
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 October 2023
Case Number
15133/23P
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Relief Application
Outcome
Application struck off the roll for lack of urgency; no order as to costs.
Judges
Davis AJ
Legal Topics
Best Interests of Child, Parental Rights and Responsibilities, School Enrolment Dispute, Children S Act Section 31, Urgency in Family Matters
Family and Children Best Interests of Child Parental Rights and Responsibilities School Enrolment Dispute Children S Act Section 31 Urgency in Family Matters

Source-derived case record

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MM

Applicant

NM

Respondent

The Office of the Family Advocate

Respondent

St. Charles College

Respondent

Alston Primary School

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interim Relief Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for interim relief regarding the child’s school enrolment is urgent.
  2. 2 Whether the removal of the child from a private school to a public school was in breach of the applicant’s parental rights.
  3. 3 Whether the best interests of the child require immediate intervention by the High Court or should be determined by the children’s court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to establish urgency as required by Uniform Rule 6(12). The delay of approximately twelve weeks between the child’s removal from St. Charles College and the filing of the urgent application was unexplained and rendered the urgency self-created. The child had already completed a full term at the new school, and the fourth term had commenced. The children’s court was already seized with the matter, and the Office of the Family Advocate was conducting an investigation. The High Court held that the children’s court was the appropriate forum for ventilating and resolving the issues of care, contact, and schooling. There was no evidence that the current...

Court Disposition

Application struck off the roll for lack of urgency; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The applicant's application is struck off the roll for lack of urgency.
  • There is no order as to costs.