T[....] v T[....] (603/2009) [2021] ZAFSHC 308 (6 December 2021)

T[....] v T[....] (603/2009) [2021] ZAFSHC 308 (6 December 2021)

The court found that the applicant failed to set out any grounds or reasons why another court would decide differently from the court a quo. The applicant did not meaningfully address his prospects of success on appeal. The reasoning and application of the law by the court a quo were found to be correct and comprehensive. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed as lacking merit and not meeting the threshold set by section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act.

Citation
[2021] ZAFSHC 308
Parties
Applicant: M[....] J[....] T[....]; Respondent: J[....] K[....] T[....]
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 December 2021
Case Number
603/2009
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Variation of Divorce Order
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Naidoo
Legal Topics
Variation of Divorce Order, Leave to Appeal Standard, Division of Joint Estate
Family and Children Civil Procedure Variation of Divorce Order Leave to Appeal Standard Division of Joint Estate

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M[....] J[....] T[....]

Applicant

J[....] K[....] T[....]

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Variation of Divorce Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated reasonable prospects of success for leave to appeal against the judgment varying the divorce order.
  2. 2 Whether the court a quo erred in its reasoning or application of the law regarding the division of the joint estate and pension interests.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to set out any grounds or reasons why another court would decide differently from the court a quo. The applicant did not meaningfully address his prospects of success on appeal. The reasoning and application of the law by the court a quo were found to be correct and comprehensive. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed as lacking merit and not meeting the threshold set by section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.