Roberts v Roberts (628/2010) [2010] ZANWHC 49 (2 July 2010)

Roberts v Roberts (628/2010) [2010] ZANWHC 49 (2 July 2010)

The court found that the applicant is impecunious and unemployed, while the respondent is gainfully employed. The applicant's claim for maintenance and contribution to costs was considered in light of the parties' standard of living and reasonable requirements. The court exercised its discretion to adjust the amounts claimed, awarding R5,650 per month for maintenance and R5,000 as a contribution to legal costs. Regarding wasted costs, the court accepted the applicant's evidence that the respondent was not hospitalised on 17 June 2010, making the postponement unnecessary, and ordered the respondent to pay those costs. The orders are to take effect from 1 October 2010 due to the...

Citation
[2010] ZANWHC 49
Parties
Applicant: Patricia Filicity Roberts; Respondent: André Roberts
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 July 2010
Case Number
628/2010
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Rule 43 Application (pendente Lite)
Outcome
Application granted in part; maintenance and contribution to costs awarded; respondent ordered to pay wasted costs of postponement.
Judges
M.J. Mpshe
Legal Topics
Maintenance Pendente Lite, Rule 43 Procedure, Contribution to Costs, Standard of Living, Wasted Costs
Family and Children Maintenance Pendente Lite Rule 43 Procedure Contribution to Costs Standard of Living Wasted 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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patricia Filicity Roberts

Applicant

André Roberts

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Rule 43 Application (pendente Lite)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to interim maintenance under Rule 43.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent should contribute to the applicant's legal costs.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent should pay wasted costs for the postponement on 17 June 2010.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant is impecunious and unemployed, while the respondent is gainfully employed. The applicant's claim for maintenance and contribution to costs was considered in light of the parties' standard of living and reasonable requirements. The court exercised its discretion to adjust the amounts claimed, awarding R5,650 per month for maintenance and R5,000 as a contribution to legal costs. Regarding wasted costs, the court accepted the applicant's evidence that the respondent was not hospitalised on 17 June 2010, making the postponement unnecessary, and ordered the respondent to pay those costs. The orders are to take effect from 1 October 2010 due to the...

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; maintenance and contribution to costs awarded; respondent ordered to pay wasted costs of postponement.

Orders

  • The respondent is to pay to the applicant an amount of R5,650.00 per month towards maintenance, effective from 1 October 2010.
  • The respondent is to pay to the applicant an amount of R5,000.00 as a contribution towards the applicant's legal costs.