D.J.D v P.A.G.L (31091/18)
D.J.D v P.A.G.L (31091/18) [2018] ZAGPPHC 543 (25 July 2018)
The court held that a Rule 43 application for interim relief in matrimonial matters can only be launched when there is pending litigation, which requires that divorce summons have been both issued and served on the respondent. The applicant's delay in instituting divorce proceedings was found to be unreasonably long and unexplained, undermining her entitlement to interim relief. The court emphasized the risk of abuse if Rule 43 applications are allowed without actual pending litigation, as parties could obtain interim relief without bona fide intention to pursue divorce proceedings. The point…
Source excerpt
- Rule 43 Interim Relief
- Maintenance Pendente Lite
- Contribution To Legal Costs
- Delay In Instituting Divorce
- Point In Limine
- Costs Order