J.J.J v S.P.J (612/2010)
J.J.J v S.P.J (612/2010) [2010] ZANCHC 39 (3 September 2010)
The court held that it does not have jurisdiction to entertain the applicant's Rule 43 application because neither party was domiciled or ordinarily resident in the jurisdiction at the time the divorce summons was issued or served. The applicant's claims of residence and domicile were found to be factually incorrect and unsupported by the evidence. The applicant had not made out a prima facie case for interim relief, as she could not establish jurisdiction in the main divorce action. The court further found that the issue of jurisdiction could be raised at any stage, even mero motu, and that…
Source excerpt
- Jurisdiction In Divorce
- Interim Maintenance
- Rule 43 Applications
- Domicile Requirements
- Costs Award