africa.lawBeta
SearchAsk AICollectionsJudgesCompareMemo
africa.law

Free access to African legal information. Legislation, case law, and regulatory documents from across the continent.

Resources

  • Legislation
  • Gazettes
  • Jurisdictions

Developers

  • API Documentation
  • Bulk Downloads
  • Data Sources
  • GitHub

Company

  • About
  • Contact
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy

Jurisdictions

  • Ghana
  • Kenya
  • Nigeria
  • South Africa
  • Tanzania
  • Uganda

© 2026 africa.law by Bhala. Open legal information for Africa.

Aggregating legal information from official government publications and public legal databases across the continent.

Back to search
Case Law[2022] ZAGPJHC 829South Africa

N v N (2021/3737) [2022] ZAGPJHC 829 (24 October 2022)

High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)
24 October 2022
RESPONDENT J, WRIGHT J, the hearing may have started

Judgment

begin wrapper begin container begin header begin slogan-floater end slogan-floater - About SAFLII About SAFLII - Databases Databases - Search Search - Terms of Use Terms of Use - RSS Feeds RSS Feeds end header begin main begin center # South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg >> 2022 >> [2022] ZAGPJHC 829 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## N v N (2021/3737) [2022] ZAGPJHC 829 (24 October 2022) N v N (2021/3737) [2022] ZAGPJHC 829 (24 October 2022) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2022_829.html sino date 24 October 2022 SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 2021/3737 Reportable: No Of interest to other judges: No Revised:yes 24 October 2022 In the matter between: N [....], L [....] P [....] S [....] APPLICANT And N [....], I [....] V [....] RESPONDENT JUDGMENT – WRIGHT J WRIGHT J 1. The applicant for rule 43 relief, which relief includes claims for maintenance money does not set out at all, either in her founding affidavit or in a supplementary affidavit filed without leave and with no accompanying application for condonation, what her income is. 2. It is unreasonable to expect a judge to try and work out what an income might be from vague allegations in a founding affidavit read with a few attached bank statements. It is unfair to expect an opposing litigant to trawl through annexes in an attempt to work out what the case is that needs to be answered. 3. The applicant’s heads of argument were uploaded to caselines today, 24 October 2022, the day of hearing, without explanation. This is hopelessly out of time. 4. Applicant’s counsel, Adv V Rikhotso, is a highly competent counsel and did her best in an attempt to salvage the hearing. 5. A draft order, presented to me on behalf of the applicant was very difficult to read. Ms Rikhotso corrected it. I had called for a draft order from both sides so that I could know what order each side was seeking. 6. Sadly, just before the hearing may have started, Mr Du Plessis, for the respondent informed me that he had just received news that his wife was dying. I immediately excused him. Ms Diedericks, his attorney requested that the matter proceed. She clearly knew her papers and had even done a calculation of the applicant’s income based on the annexes to the founding affidavit. She submitted that the applicant made more than enough money and that the application should be dismissed. 7. Ms Diedericks may be correct, but I need to do justice between the parties. I do not know why the applicant’s case was presented like it was. Ms Rikhotso made mention of there perhaps being some urgency. There is no urgency in the present application. It is an ordinary rule 43 case. 8. Ms Diedericks opposed the admission into evidence of the applicant’s supplementary affidavit. I make no finding on the admissibility into evidence of the supplementary affidavit. 9. In my view, given all the circumstances, it is in the interests of justice that I make the following order. ORDER 1. The matter is postponed sine die, costs reserved. 2. The applicant is to deliver a supplementary affidavit by 5pm on 4 November 2022. 3. The respondent may deliver a supplementary affidavit within ten court days thereafter. HEARD                                  : 24 October 2022 DELIVERED                          : 24 October 2022 APPEARANCES APPLICANT                           : Adv Vivian Rikhotso 073 221 3395 vrikhotso86@gmail.com Jurgens Bekker Attorneys 011 622 5472 RESPONDENT                     : Adv C R Du Plessis and then Ms Diedericks 082 852 3505 charl@litigationsa.com Diederiks Oudegeest Attorneys Inc 010 110 9612/082 951 9575 diedericks@diedericksattorneys.com sino noindex make_database footer start

Similar Cases

N v N (2021/56843) [2022] ZAGPJHC 819 (20 October 2022)
[2022] ZAGPJHC 819High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)100% similar
N v N (A5050/2020; 36343/2014) [2022] ZAGPJHC 569 (16 August 2022)
[2022] ZAGPJHC 569High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)100% similar
N v N and Another (9417/2019) [2022] ZAGPJHC 714 (21 September 2022)
[2022] ZAGPJHC 714High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)100% similar
M v N (2021/22911) [2022] ZAGPJHC 882 (10 November 2022)
[2022] ZAGPJHC 882High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)99% similar
S v Nthai (Interlocutory Application) (SS33/2022) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1178 (7 November 2024)
[2024] ZAGPJHC 1178High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)99% similar

Discussion