Tame v Tame and Others (40730/06) [2007] ZAGPHC 210 (14 September 2007)

Tame v Tame and Others (40730/06) [2007] ZAGPHC 210 (14 September 2007)

The court found that both parties shared responsibility for the dispute and neither could claim success based on the interim order previously granted. The acrimonious relationship between the parties had led to the involvement of the minor children in the proceedings, which the court found unacceptable. Given the circumstances and the conduct of both parties, the court exercised its discretion not to award costs to either side, emphasizing that the interests of the children must be protected and that neither party should be penalized with costs in this instance.

Citation
[2007] ZAGPHC 210
Parties
Applicant: Tame, Nigel Ronald; Respondent: Tame, Colleen Deanne (born Jenzen); Respondent: Minister of Safety and Security; Respondent: Commissioner of Police
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 September 2007
Case Number
40730/06
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Costs Determination After Interim Order
Outcome
No order as to costs; the application was resolved by agreement and postponed sine die.
Judges
S A Nthai
Legal Topics
Custody and Access, Urgent Interdict, Costs Award, Rule 43 Application
Family and Children Civil Procedure Custody and Access Urgent Interdict Costs Award Rule 43 Application

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tame, Nigel Ronald

Applicant

Tame, Colleen Deanne (born Jenzen)

Respondent

Minister of Safety and Security

Respondent

Commissioner of Police

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Costs Determination After Interim Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was entitled to exercise access rights to the minor children during the December 2006 school holidays.
  2. 2 Whether the kidnapping charges laid against the applicant should affect his access to the children.
  3. 3 Who should bear the costs of the urgent application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that both parties shared responsibility for the dispute and neither could claim success based on the interim order previously granted. The acrimonious relationship between the parties had led to the involvement of the minor children in the proceedings, which the court found unacceptable. Given the circumstances and the conduct of both parties, the court exercised its discretion not to award costs to either side, emphasizing that the interests of the children must be protected and that neither party should be penalized with costs in this instance.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs; the application was resolved by agreement and postponed sine die.

Orders

  • There is no order as to costs.