R[....] v R[....] (44169/2019) [2020] ZAGPJHC 379 (2 December 2020)

R[....] v R[....] (44169/2019) [2020] ZAGPJHC 379 (2 December 2020)

The court found that the interim order granted in Part A was not appealable as it lacked finality, did not definitively resolve the rights of the parties, and did not dispose of a substantial portion of the relief sought. The application for leave to appeal was considered urgent but postponement was contrary to the child's best interests. The court held that the applications brought by the applicant were attempts to obstruct the implementation of the interim order. The Section 18 application and the application for the appointment of a curator ad litem were dismissed as the court was functus officio and lacked competence to grant such orders at this stage. Mr B[....] was joined as a party...

Citation
[2020] ZAGPJHC 379
Parties
Applicant: K[....] R[....]; Respondent: K[....] M[....] R[....]; Respondent: C[....] P[....]; Respondent: R[....] M[....] B[....]
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 December 2020
Case Number
44169/2019
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Interim Order; Joined Application for Intervention and Section 18 Application
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs; Section 18 application dismissed with costs; Mr B[....] joined as second respondent.
Judges
Segal AJ
Legal Topics
Interim Custody, Leave to Appeal, Joinder of Parties, Curator Ad Litem, Urgent Application
Family and Children Civil Procedure Interim Custody Leave to Appeal Joinder of Parties Curator Ad Litem Urgent Application

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

K[....] R[....]

Applicant

K[....] M[....] R[....]

Respondent

C[....] P[....]

Respondent

R[....] M[....] B[....]

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Interim Order; Joined Application for Intervention and Section 18 Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the interim order in Part A is appealable.
  2. 2 Whether the application for leave to appeal should be postponed.
  3. 3 Whether Mr B[....] should be joined as a party and allowed to participate in Part A.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the interim order granted in Part A was not appealable as it lacked finality, did not definitively resolve the rights of the parties, and did not dispose of a substantial portion of the relief sought. The application for leave to appeal was considered urgent but postponement was contrary to the child's best interests. The court held that the applications brought by the applicant were attempts to obstruct the implementation of the interim order. The Section 18 application and the application for the appointment of a curator ad litem were dismissed as the court was functus officio and lacked competence to grant such orders at this stage. Mr B[....] was joined as a party...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs; Section 18 application dismissed with costs; Mr B[....] joined as second respondent.

Orders

  • Mr B[....] is joined to the main application as the Second Respondent by agreement between the parties.
  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.