South Africa Case Law

S.M v N.M (D6667/2024)

S.M v N.M (D6667/2024) [2024] ZAKZDHC 54 (28 August 2024)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

D6667/2024

Judge

Mossop

The court found that the applicant's Rule 43 application was excessively lengthy, containing irrelevant allegations and annexures, and failed to comply with the requirements of brevity and relevance prescribed by Uniform Rule 43. The application constituted an abuse of process, and the court exercised its discretion to strike the matter off the roll. Recognizing that the applicant may not have been aware of the procedural requirements, the court determined that her legal advisors were responsible for the prolixity and abuse. Accordingly, the court ordered that the applicant's attorney may not…

Source excerpt

• Rule 43 Applications
• Abuse Of Process
• Prolixity
• Interim Relief
• Costs Orders

S.V.D.L v A.J.V.D.L (70189/2013)

S.V.D.L v A.J.V.D.L (70189/2013) [2015] ZAGPPHC 445 (13 May 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

70189/2013

Judge

Ismail

Rule 43 variation application struck from the roll after the court found both parties’ affidavits excessively prolix and contrary to the procedure.

• Rule 43 Applications
• Maintenance Variation
• Costs Orders
• Prolixity In Affidavits
• Rule-43-applications
• Maintenance-variation