R.L.M.K v M.G.M (20421/2016)
R.L.M.K v M.G.M (20421/2016) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1243 (29 November 2024)
The court found that the application was not urgent, as the applicant's financial difficulties were not of a sudden or immediate nature and could be addressed through ordinary rule 43 proceedings within a reasonable time. On the merits, the relief sought was unsustainable: the claim for a contribution towards legal costs related to past expenses, which are excluded by the divorce order requiring each party to pay their own costs; direct access to the respondent's bank accounts lacked any legal basis; and the claim for university fees was unsupported, as there was no order obliging the respond…
Source excerpt
- Rule 43 Applications
- Maintenance
- Costs Contribution
- Urgency
- Access To Bank Accounts
- University Fees