N.S v A.D (2022/257) [2025] ZAGPJHC 632 (20 June 2025)

N.S v A.D (2022/257) [2025] ZAGPJHC 632 (20 June 2025)

The respondent's notice of motion dated 10 February 2025 and the final paragraph of her replying affidavit were irregular and not compliant with the Uniform Rules of Court, specifically Rules 6(15), 27, and 28. The respondent failed to provide a substantive application for condonation or a supporting affidavit, and did not adequately address the applicant's complaints once alerted. However, the applicant suffered no further prejudice as he is granted leave to file a supplementary affidavit in response. The respondent's attorney's conduct, while not exemplary, did not rise to the level required for a de bonis propriis costs order. The respondent should not be burdened with further costs...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPJHC 632
Parties
Applicant: N[...] S[...]; Respondent: A[...] D[...]
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 June 2025
Case Number
2022/257
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Opposed Motion; Application Under Rule 30(2)(b) and Rule 30 a
Outcome
The respondent's notice of motion is set aside; the impugned paragraph in her replying affidavit is struck out; the applicant is granted leave to file a supplementary affidavit; costs incurred by the respondent in opposing this application are to be paid by her attorney.
Judges
LANGE
Legal Topics
Uniform Rules of Court, Irregular Proceedings, Condonation, Costs Orders, Amendment of Pleadings
Civil Procedure Family and Children Uniform Rules of Court Irregular Proceedings Condonation Costs Orders Amendment of Pleadings

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

N[...] S[...]

Applicant

A[...] D[...]

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Opposed Motion; Application Under Rule 30(2)(b) and Rule 30 a

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's notice of motion and replying affidavit were irregular and in breach of the Uniform Rules of Court.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent provided sufficient explanation for late filing and procedural non-compliance.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant suffered prejudice as a result of the respondent's procedural irregularities.

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent's notice of motion dated 10 February 2025 and the final paragraph of her replying affidavit were irregular and not compliant with the Uniform Rules of Court, specifically Rules 6(15), 27, and 28. The respondent failed to provide a substantive application for condonation or a supporting affidavit, and did not adequately address the applicant's complaints once alerted. However, the applicant suffered no further prejudice as he is granted leave to file a supplementary affidavit in response. The respondent's attorney's conduct, while not exemplary, did not rise to the level required for a de bonis propriis costs order. The respondent should not be burdened with further costs...

Court Disposition

The respondent's notice of motion is set aside; the impugned paragraph in her replying affidavit is struck out; the applicant is granted leave to file a supplementary affidavit; costs incurred by the respondent in opposing this application are to be paid by her attorney.

Orders

  • The respondent’s notice of motion dated 10 February 2025 is set aside.
  • The final paragraph of the respondent’s replying affidavit is struck out.