Vorster v Vorster (4396/2020) [2021] ZAFSHC 215 (27 July 2021)

Vorster v Vorster (4396/2020) [2021] ZAFSHC 215 (27 July 2021)

The court found that the applicant failed to establish a material change in his financial circumstances sufficient to warrant a variation of the Rule 43 order. The applicant's papers were riddled with errors, contradictions, and lacked full and frank disclosure of his financial position. The financial statements provided did not support his claim of reduced income, and the respondent demonstrated that the applicant's assets and income had in fact increased. The court held that the applicant's attempt amounted to an impermissible appeal or rehearing of the original Rule 43 application. The costs incurred due to the replying affidavit and unnecessary opposition were a direct result of the...

Citation
[2021] ZAFSHC 215
Parties
Applicant: Jacob Johannes Vorster; Respondent: Lizanne Vorster
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 July 2021
Case Number
4396/2020
Procedural Posture
Variation Application / Application for Variation of Rule 43 Order
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs, including costs of replying affidavit.
Judges
I VAN RHYN
Legal Topics
Rule 43 Variation, Spousal Maintenance, Interim Relief, Material Change in Circumstances
Family and Children Civil Procedure Rule 43 Variation Spousal Maintenance Interim Relief Material Change in Circumstances

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacob Johannes Vorster

Applicant

Lizanne Vorster

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Variation Application / Application for Variation of Rule 43 Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has established a material change in financial circumstances justifying variation of the Rule 43 order.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's papers and evidence support the relief sought.
  3. 3 Whether the costs of the replying affidavit should be borne by the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to establish a material change in his financial circumstances sufficient to warrant a variation of the Rule 43 order. The applicant's papers were riddled with errors, contradictions, and lacked full and frank disclosure of his financial position. The financial statements provided did not support his claim of reduced income, and the respondent demonstrated that the applicant's assets and income had in fact increased. The court held that the applicant's attempt amounted to an impermissible appeal or rehearing of the original Rule 43 application. The costs incurred due to the replying affidavit and unnecessary opposition were a direct result of the...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs, including costs of replying affidavit.

Orders

  • The application in terms of Rule 43(6) is dismissed with costs, such costs to include the costs arising from the filing of the applicant's replying affidavit.