N.P.K. v K.A.K (2020/15202; 2024/023432) [2025] ZAGPJHC 669 (11 July 2025)

N.P.K. v K.A.K (2020/15202; 2024/023432) [2025] ZAGPJHC 669 (11 July 2025)

The court found that the Deputy Judge President acted correctly in allocating a single hearing date for all related applications arising from the parties' divorce proceedings. The applicant's concerns regarding prejudice and procedural fairness were not substantiated by the facts or the rules of court. The court held that it does not have the power to reconsider or alter the hearing date set by the Deputy Judge President, as such administrative decisions fall outside its jurisdiction unless a procedural irregularity is demonstrated. The application for reconsideration of the hearing date was dismissed as having no basis in fact or procedure.

Citation
[2025] ZAGPJHC 669
Parties
Applicant: N[...] P[...] K[...]; Respondent: K[...] A[...] K[...]
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 July 2025
Case Number
2020/15202; 2024/023432
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Reconsideration of Hearing Date
Outcome
Application for reconsideration of hearing date dismissed.
Judges
Von Ludwig
Legal Topics
Case Management, Hearing Scheduling, Judicial Discretion
Civil Procedure Case Management Hearing Scheduling Judicial Discretion

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

N[...] P[...] K[...]

Applicant

K[...] A[...] K[...]

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Reconsideration of Hearing Date

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has the power to reconsider and alter a hearing date allocated by the Deputy Judge President.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's rights to prepare submissions were prejudiced by the scheduling of the hearing.
  3. 3 Whether separate hearings are required for each application in the context of a divorce matter.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Deputy Judge President acted correctly in allocating a single hearing date for all related applications arising from the parties' divorce proceedings. The applicant's concerns regarding prejudice and procedural fairness were not substantiated by the facts or the rules of court. The court held that it does not have the power to reconsider or alter the hearing date set by the Deputy Judge President, as such administrative decisions fall outside its jurisdiction unless a procedural irregularity is demonstrated. The application for reconsideration of the hearing date was dismissed as having no basis in fact or procedure.

Court Disposition

Application for reconsideration of hearing date dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for reconsideration of date is dismissed as having no basis in fact or in procedure.