C.R.E v M.E (2023/131897)
C.R.E v M.E (2023/131897) [2025] ZAGPJHC 716 (27 February 2025)
The applicant failed to demonstrate a patent error or omission attributable to the court in the granting of the Rule 43 interim maintenance order. The forensic audit and financial evidence presented were available during the original proceedings and do not constitute grounds for variation under Rule 42(1)(b). The applicant did not establish a material change in circumstances as required by Rule 43(6), nor did he prove fraud or deliberate suppression of evidence by the respondent. The order reflects the court's true intention based on the evidence before it, and the principle of finality precl…
Source excerpt
- Interim Maintenance
- Variation Of Court Order
- Rule 43 Application
- Rule 42 Patent Error
- Rescission On Fraud