S.V.D.L v A.J.V.D.L (70189/2013) [2015] ZAGPPHC 445 (13 May 2015)

S.V.D.L v A.J.V.D.L (70189/2013) [2015] ZAGPPHC 445 (13 May 2015)

The court found that both parties were guilty of excessive prolixity in their affidavits, contrary to the principles governing Rule 43 applications. The applicant filed a third set of affidavits without leave of the court and without special circumstances justifying such conduct. The excessive volume of papers obfuscated rather than clarified the issues. In line with established precedent, the court struck the application from the roll and ordered that neither party's attorneys may charge fees for the application or opposition, and no costs order was made.

Citation
[2015] ZAGPPHC 445
Parties
Applicant: S.V.D.L; Respondent: A.J.V.D.L
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 May 2015
Case Number
70189/2013
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Rule 43 Variation Application
Outcome
Application struck from the roll; no order as to costs; attorneys prohibited from charging fees for this application and opposition.
Judges
Ismail
Legal Topics
Rule 43 Applications, Maintenance Variation, Costs Orders, Prolixity in Affidavits
Family and Children Civil Procedure Rule 43 Applications Maintenance Variation Costs Orders Prolixity in Affidavits

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S.V.D.L

Applicant

A.J.V.D.L

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Rule 43 Variation Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has established a material change in circumstances justifying variation of the previous Rule 43 order.
  2. 2 Whether the parties' conduct in filing voluminous affidavits is permissible under Rule 43.
  3. 3 Whether costs should be awarded and whether attorneys may charge fees for this application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that both parties were guilty of excessive prolixity in their affidavits, contrary to the principles governing Rule 43 applications. The applicant filed a third set of affidavits without leave of the court and without special circumstances justifying such conduct. The excessive volume of papers obfuscated rather than clarified the issues. In line with established precedent, the court struck the application from the roll and ordered that neither party's attorneys may charge fees for the application or opposition, and no costs order was made.

Court Disposition

Application struck from the roll; no order as to costs; attorneys prohibited from charging fees for this application and opposition.

Orders

  • The application is struck off the roll.
  • There is no order as to costs.