R.G v J.G and Others (14679/09) [2009] ZAKZDHC 61 (4 November 2009)

R.G v J.G and Others (14679/09) [2009] ZAKZDHC 61 (4 November 2009)

The court found reason to believe that the applicant may have failed to disclose material facts honestly, may have misled the court about the urgency of the application, and may have committed perjury in her supporting affidavit. Given these concerns, and in exercise of the court's inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process, the applicant was ordered to appear or file an affidavit explaining why the matter should not be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions for consideration of perjury charges.

Citation
[2009] ZAKZDHC 61
Parties
Applicant: R G; Respondent: J G; Respondent: Ravindra Surujbelly; Respondent: Yogis Govender; Respondent: Registrar of Deeds (KZN)
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 November 2009
Case Number
14679/09
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Adjourned for Explanation Regarding Possible Perjury
Outcome
Application adjourned for the applicant to explain why referral for possible perjury should not occur.
Judges
Marais
Legal Topics
Urgent Interdict, Sale of Immovable Property, Community of Property, Perjury, Abuse of Process
Civil Procedure Family and Children Land and Property Urgent Interdict Sale of Immovable Property Community of Property Perjury Abuse of Process

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R G

Applicant

J G

Respondent

Ravindra Surujbelly

Respondent

Yogis Govender

Respondent

Registrar of Deeds (KZN)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Adjourned for Explanation Regarding Possible Perjury

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant failed to make an honest disclosure of relevant circumstances in her urgent application.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant misled the court regarding the urgency of the matter.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant committed perjury in her affidavit supporting the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found reason to believe that the applicant may have failed to disclose material facts honestly, may have misled the court about the urgency of the application, and may have committed perjury in her supporting affidavit. Given these concerns, and in exercise of the court's inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process, the applicant was ordered to appear or file an affidavit explaining why the matter should not be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions for consideration of perjury charges.

Court Disposition

Application adjourned for the applicant to explain why referral for possible perjury should not occur.

Orders

  • The applicant is ordered to appear in person or file an affidavit on 13 November 2009 to explain why the application should not be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions for consideration of perjury.