South Africa Case Law

S S v P H (2015/18402; 2014/42472)

S S v P H (2015/18402; 2014/42472) [2019] ZAGPJHC 486 (23 May 2019)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2015/18402; 2014/42472

Judge

F Snyckers

The court found that rescission is not an appropriate remedy for the Rule 43 maintenance order and the final interdict suspending parental rights, as the applicant failed to provide substantive grounds or a bona fide defence for these orders. The applicant's explanations for default were inadequate, and his reliance on his fugitive status was censured. However, regarding the division order in the divorce decree, the court held that the applicant established a bona fide defence with prospects of success by demonstrating that Swiss law, not South African law, should govern the proprietary conse…

Source excerpt

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Division Of Joint Estate
• Rule 43 Orders
• Parental Rights And Responsibilities
• Foreign Law Proof
• Domicile And Marital Property Regime

S S v H P (2015/18402; 2014/42472)

S S v H P (2015/18402; 2014/42472) [2019] ZAGPJHC 468; [2019] 3 All SA 645 (GJ) (23 May 2019)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2015/18402; 2014/42472

Judge

F Snyckers

The court refused rescission of a Rule 43 maintenance order and a parental-rights interdict, but rescinded the divorce decree’s division of the joint estate.

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Division Of Joint Estate
• Rule 43 Orders
• Foreign Law Proof
• Marital Property Regime
• Rescission-of-judgment