S and Another v T (20/33629) [2023] ZAGPJHC 696 (13 June 2023)

S and Another v T (20/33629) [2023] ZAGPJHC 696 (13 June 2023)

The court found that the application was res judicata, having already been determined by Makume J, who dismissed a previous urgent application for similar relief. Even if res judicata did not apply, the applicants failed to establish that the respondent had persistently and without reasonable grounds instituted legal proceedings as required by the Vexatious Proceedings Act. The respondent’s actions—approaching the Children’s Court for contact with his child and laying a single criminal complaint—were bona fide and not vexatious. The applicants did not meet the requirements for a final interdict, as there was no clear right infringed, no injury reasonably apprehended, and alternative...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPJHC 696
Parties
Applicant: S; Applicant: M; Respondent: T
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 June 2023
Case Number
20/33629
Procedural Posture
Final Interdict Application / Judgment After Hearing on Merits
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Mitchell
Legal Topics
Vexatious Litigation, Children S Act, Interdictory Relief, Parental Responsibilities and Rights, Costs Order
Family and Children Civil Procedure Vexatious Litigation Children S Act Interdictory Relief Parental Responsibilities and Rights Costs Order

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S

Applicant

M

Applicant

T

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Final Interdict Application / Judgment After Hearing on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent should be declared a vexatious litigant under the Vexatious Proceedings Act.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants are entitled to interdictory relief preventing the respondent from instituting further legal proceedings or laying complaints without leave of court.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's conduct amounts to persistent and unreasonable litigation as contemplated by the Vexatious Proceedings Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application was res judicata, having already been determined by Makume J, who dismissed a previous urgent application for similar relief. Even if res judicata did not apply, the applicants failed to establish that the respondent had persistently and without reasonable grounds instituted legal proceedings as required by the Vexatious Proceedings Act. The respondent’s actions—approaching the Children’s Court for contact with his child and laying a single criminal complaint—were bona fide and not vexatious. The applicants did not meet the requirements for a final interdict, as there was no clear right infringed, no injury reasonably apprehended, and alternative...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Leave is granted to the applicant to deliver a fourth supplementary affidavit.
  • The application is dismissed.