S.M v L.M and Another (81643/2023) [2024] ZAGPJHC 815 (14 August 2024)

S.M v L.M and Another (81643/2023) [2024] ZAGPJHC 815 (14 August 2024)

The court found that the applicant did not intend to withdraw her review application but merely to remove it from the roll for a particular week, as evidenced by the heading of her notice and her subsequent conduct. The First Respondent, despite being provided with pro bono legal representation, failed to cooperate or remain contactable, causing unnecessary delay. The Second Respondent was not properly served and had not received notice of the application. Given the serious nature of the dispute, which affects the welfare of two minor children, both respondents must be afforded an opportunity to oppose. The matter is postponed sine die, with directions for the filing of answering...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 815
Parties
Applicant: S[...] M[...]; Respondent: L[...] M[...]; Respondent: Magistrate Booysen
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 August 2024
Case Number
81643/2023
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Postponement on Unopposed Roll
Outcome
Application postponed sine die with directions for filing of answering affidavits; no order as to costs.
Judges
Segal
Legal Topics
Uniform Rule 53, Domestic Violence Review, Interim Interdict, Withdrawal Vs Removal, Minor Children Welfare
Civil Procedure Family and Children Uniform Rule 53 Domestic Violence Review Interim Interdict Withdrawal Vs Removal Minor Children Welfare

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S[...] M[...]

Applicant

L[...] M[...]

Respondent

Magistrate Booysen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Postponement on Unopposed Roll

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's notice constituted a withdrawal or merely a removal from the roll for a specific week.
  2. 2 Whether the First and Second Respondents should be afforded an opportunity to oppose the application.
  3. 3 Whether the interests of minor children require expedited resolution of the dispute.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant did not intend to withdraw her review application but merely to remove it from the roll for a particular week, as evidenced by the heading of her notice and her subsequent conduct. The First Respondent, despite being provided with pro bono legal representation, failed to cooperate or remain contactable, causing unnecessary delay. The Second Respondent was not properly served and had not received notice of the application. Given the serious nature of the dispute, which affects the welfare of two minor children, both respondents must be afforded an opportunity to oppose. The matter is postponed sine die, with directions for the filing of answering...

Court Disposition

Application postponed sine die with directions for filing of answering affidavits; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application is postponed sine die.
  • The First Respondent is ordered to file her answering affidavit by 5 September 2024 should she wish to oppose.