N S v J N (506/2021) [2022] ZASCA 122 (19 September 2022)

N S v J N (506/2021) [2022] ZASCA 122 (19 September 2022)

The appeal was dismissed because the respondent and minor child had left South Africa, rendering any order ineffectual and moot. The appellant conceded that Part B could be re-enrolled and that alternative procedures for obtaining a Family Advocate report remained available. The court found no practical effect or result would arise from entertaining the appeal, and the proceedings were deemed vexatious, justifying a punitive costs order. The appeal was dismissed in terms of s 16(2)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act.

Citation
[2022] ZASCA 122
Parties
Appellant: N S; Respondent: J N
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 September 2022
Case Number
506/2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel on the attorney and client scale.
Judges
Ponnan, Hughes, Mabindla-Boqwana, Musi, Goosen
Legal Topics
Parental Rights and Responsibilities, Primary Residence of Minor, Mootness, Punitive Costs
Family and Children Civil Procedure Parental Rights and Responsibilities Primary Residence of Minor Mootness Punitive Costs

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

N S

Appellant

J N

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal has any practical effect or result given the respondent and minor child have left South Africa.
  2. 2 Whether the orders issued by Sardiwalla J and Lamprecht AJ are dispositive, determinative, and final in effect and thus appealable.
  3. 3 Whether the proceedings are vexatious and warrant a punitive costs order.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the respondent and minor child had left South Africa, rendering any order ineffectual and moot. The appellant conceded that Part B could be re-enrolled and that alternative procedures for obtaining a Family Advocate report remained available. The court found no practical effect or result would arise from entertaining the appeal, and the proceedings were deemed vexatious, justifying a punitive costs order. The appeal was dismissed in terms of s 16(2)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel on the attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel to be paid on the attorney and client scale.