N.P.M v M.O.M (Leave to Appeal) (012480/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1239 (24 November 2025)

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: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria >> 2025 >> [2025] ZAGPPHC 1239 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## N.P.M v M.O.M (Leave to Appeal) (012480/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1239 (24 November 2025) N.P.M v M.O.M (Leave to Appeal) (012480/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1239 (24 November 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2025_1239.html sino date 24 November 2025 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 DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE NO: 012480 /2023 (1)        REPORTABLE: NO (2)        OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO (3)        REVISED. DATE       24/11/2025 LENYAI J In the matter of: N[...] P[...] M[...]                                                                                            Applicant And M[...] O[...] M[...]                                                                                     Respondent Delivered: This judgment is handed down electronically by circulation to the Parties/their legal representatives by email and by uploading to Caselines. The date and time of hand-down is deemed to be 14:00 on 24 November 2025. JUDGMENT LENYAI J 1. This is an application for leave to appeal brought by the applicant against the ex tempore judgment and order granted by me on the 1 st September 2025. It is noteworthy to mention that this order was granted in an Application brought in terms of Rule 43 of the Uniform Rules of Court. 2. The application for leave to appeal was brought out of time and the applicant sought condonation for the late filling of the application. There was no opposition to the condonation application and same was granted. 3. The test for the granting of leave to appeal pertinent to the present matter is set out in section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 as follows: “ ( 1)    Leave to appeal may only be given where the judge or judges concerned are of the opinion that (a) (i)   the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success or (ii)  there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard, including conflicting judgments on the matter under consideration.” 4. I have considered the grounds upon which the application has been brought and the reasons given by me for the judgment and the order. I have also considered the submissions made by counsel for the granting of leave to appeal on the part of the applicant and those opposing the granting of leave to appeal on behalf of the respondent. 5. Lest we forget, it is trite that Rule 43 orders are interim in nature and are not intended to be appealed. See S v S and Another [2019] ZACC @ para 33. In this matter the Constitutional Court enforced the principle that Rule 43 applications serve as a mechanism for swift and cost effective interim relief during divorce proceedings and are not subject to appeal. 6. The apex court also acknowledged that litigants are not precluded from seeking a variation order under Rule 43(6) albeit with restrictions. The applicant had not submitted an updated financial disclosure form for consideration by the court hence the order that was granted. 7. I am not persuaded that another court would come to a different conclusion or that there is some other compelling reason why leave to appeal should be granted 8. In the circumstances, I make the following order: 8.1    The application for leave to appeal is refused. 8.2  The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the respondent on scale B. MMD LENYAI J JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA Appearances Counsel for Appellants                         : Mr Malale Instructed by Malale Nthapeleng Attorneys Counsel for Respondent.                      : Adv A.J Schoeman Instructed by                                       : Shapiro  & Haasbroek  Attorneys Date of hearing                                      : 18 November 2025 Date of Judgement                                : 24 November 2025 sino noindex make_database footer start