WD v AD (2019/41365) [2021] ZAGPJHC 550 (18 October 2021)

WD v AD (2019/41365) [2021] ZAGPJHC 550 (18 October 2021)

The applicant failed to establish urgency or compliance with the Practice Directives and procedural requirements for urgent applications. The founding affidavit did not substantiate the alleged settlement or set-off, nor did it demonstrate irreparable harm or lack of alternative remedies. The applicant is a person of means with access to other resources and remedies. The application was procedurally defective, and the respondent was not afforded a fair opportunity to respond to new arguments raised belatedly. Accordingly, the matter was struck off the roll for lack of urgency and non-compliance with Practice Directives.

Citation
[2021] ZAGPJHC 550
Parties
Applicant: WD; Respondent: AD
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 October 2021
Case Number
2019/41365
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Stay and Setting Aside of Warrant of Execution
Outcome
Application struck off the roll for lack of urgency and non-compliance with Practice Directives; costs awarded against the applicant.
Judges
E Weiner
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Urgent Interdict, Divorce Settlement, Practice Directives, Warrant of Execution
Civil Procedure Family and Children Stay of Execution Urgent Interdict Divorce Settlement Practice Directives Warrant of Execution

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WD

Applicant

AD

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Stay and Setting Aside of Warrant of Execution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant established sufficient urgency to justify departure from normal court procedures.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to interim relief staying or setting aside the warrant of execution.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant demonstrated irreparable harm and absence of alternative remedies.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish urgency or compliance with the Practice Directives and procedural requirements for urgent applications. The founding affidavit did not substantiate the alleged settlement or set-off, nor did it demonstrate irreparable harm or lack of alternative remedies. The applicant is a person of means with access to other resources and remedies. The application was procedurally defective, and the respondent was not afforded a fair opportunity to respond to new arguments raised belatedly. Accordingly, the matter was struck off the roll for lack of urgency and non-compliance with Practice Directives.

Court Disposition

Application struck off the roll for lack of urgency and non-compliance with Practice Directives; costs awarded against the applicant.

Orders

  • The matter is struck off the roll for lack of urgency and failure to comply with the Practice Directives of this Division.
  • The applicant is to pay the costs.