Case Law[2024] ZAGPJHC 815South Africa
S.M v L.M and Another (81643/2023) [2024] ZAGPJHC 815 (14 August 2024)
High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)
14 August 2024
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
>>
2024
>>
[2024] ZAGPJHC 815
|
Noteup
|
LawCite
sino index
## S.M v L.M and Another (81643/2023) [2024] ZAGPJHC 815 (14 August 2024)
S.M v L.M and Another (81643/2023) [2024] ZAGPJHC 815 (14 August 2024)
Download original files
PDF format
RTF format
make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2024_815.html
sino date 14 August 2024
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
1.
REPORTABLE: YES/NO
2.
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO
3.
REVISED:
14
August 2024
CASE
NO: 81643/2023
In the matter between:
S[...]
M[...]
Applicant
and
L[...]
M[...]
First
Respondent
MAGISTRATE
BOOYSEN
Second
Respondent
JUDGMENT
SEGAL
AJ:
[1]
This matter was set
down on the unopposed roll of the Family Court for the week of 29
July 2024. It is an application in terms of
Uniform Rule of Court 53,
for -:
1.1
an order reviewing and
setting aside the judgment granted on 7 August 2023 by the Second
Respondent;
1.2
calling upon the Second
Respondent to dispatch the record of the proceedings of the court 20
Domestic Violence Court sitting at
the Magisterial District of
Johannesburg, Randburg, under case number 2046/2022, as well as the
record of proceedings of court
3 Criminal Court under case number
3/1263/2022, together with such reasons as he is by law required to
give and to notify the Applicant
that he has done so and transmit the
record to the Registrar of the High Court;
1.3
pending determination
of the relief sought in Part B, that the First Respondent be
interdicted from evicting the Applicant and her
two minor children
from the shared residence, situate at Apartment 1[…], B[…]
8[…] K[…] Street, S[…],
Johannesburg;
1.4
pending the
determination of Part B that the First Respondent be interdicted from
making attempts to have the Applicant arrested
without good cause or
threatening to do so.
[2]
Notwithstanding the
fact that the matter was set down on the unopposed roll, the
pro
bono
counsel for
the First Respondent, Ms Olwagen-Meyer attended court to seek a
postponement of the matter on behalf of the First Respondent
and to
permit the First Respondent to file an opposing affidavit within 15
days of the date upon which the matter was heard.
[3]
A substantive
postponement application was brought in support of the postponement,
but this affidavit was neither deposed to by
the First Respondent nor
her attorney of record. It was in fact deposed to by a secretary
employed at the firm representing the
First Respondent, namely Sipho
Jackie Ratshipaladza who contended that she was permitted to depose
to the affidavit on behalf of
the First Respondent “
by
virtue of a Legal Practice Council appointment appointing Fick Haupt
Inc. to act as her attorney of record in the matter
”.
[4]
I am not aware of any
authority for the proposition that a secretary at a firm of attorneys
is permitted to depose to an affidavit
on behalf of a client in
circumstances where the firm is appointed by the Legal Practice
Council or at all. I consider this to
be inappropriate and irregular.
[5]
The First Respondent
after having been afforded the assistance of a
pro
bono
attorney and
counsel simply failed to take any steps to advance her case and made
herself uncontactable for over a month. It ill
behoves a litigant who
has the benefit of
pro
bono
legal
representation to leave the province without providing contact
details to her legal representatives. The complete lack of
cooperation on her part is not only disrespectful to this Court and
to her
pro bono
legal team, but also unacceptable. It has occasioned an inexcusable
delay of the matter in circumstances where the matter is a
serious
one which affects the interests of 2 minor children.
[6]
The matter was also
opposed by the Second Respondent who appeared in person and indicated
to the court that he had not received
the application which, although
apparently served on a senior official at the Magistrates Court, had
not been brought to his attention.
The Second Respondent indicated
that he intends to oppose the application and seeks an opportunity to
do so. I accept that for
reasons beyond the control of the Second
Respondent, the application was regrettably not brought to his
attention.
[7]
The Second Respondent
pointed out to the court that he had noticed that on Caselines
Paginated Page 02-1 to 02-3, the Applicant
had withdrawn the review
application by notice. The notice to which he referred is headed
“
Notice of
Removal
” in
the tramlines, but the body of the notice states:-
“
KINDLY
NOTE
the
Applicant hereby withdraws the Review Application set down for 03
June 2023 (sic)
.”
[8]
He contended that in
light of this withdrawal, there was no longer a case to be met.
[9]
The Applicant who is a
junior Advocate of this Honourable Court and who represents herself,
indicated that she had erroneously stated
that she withdraws the
application when she in fact intended only to remove the application
from the roll for that week. In this
regard, she indicated that the
heading of the notice was Notice of Removal.
[10]
It was furthermore her
case that her intention to pursue the matter was manifest from her
conduct since May 2024 in that she had
proceeded with the matter in
earnest, despite the dilatory conduct on the part of the First
Respondent, who, after having been
provided with
pro
bono
attorneys and
counsel disappeared and made herself uncontactable in consequence of
which her affidavit could not be prepared or
delivered.
[11]
This matter is one
which concerns the court in that in relates to a mother and daughter
co-residing in an apartment with two minor
children in circumstances
where there is ill-feeling and hostility pervading their home. This
atmosphere cannot be good for the
children and their emotional
wellbeing is at stake.
[12]
The matter must be
progressed and determined without delay in the interests of closure
and certainty for the minor children at the
very least.
[13]
I accept that:-
13.1
the Applicant did not
intend to withdraw her application but rather to remove it from the
roll for that particular week and that
the reference to the
withdrawal was an error;
13.2
the First Respondent
wishes to oppose the application and despite her dilatory conduct,
shall be afforded an opportunity to do so;
13.3
the
Second Respondent wishes to oppose the application and must be
afforded an opportunity to do so.
[14]
In
the circumstances, I grant an order in the following terms:-
14.1
The application is
postponed
sine die
.
14.2
The First Respondent is
ordered to file her answering affidavit should she wish to proceed
with her opposition by 5 September 2024.
14.3
The Second Respondent
is ordered to file his answering affidavit should he wish to proceed
with his opposition by 5 September 2024.
14.4
No order is made as to
costs as the Applicant and Second Respondent appear in person; and
the First Respondent’s legal representatives
act
pro
bono
.
SEGAL
AJ
ACTING JUDGE OF THE
HIGH COURT
GAUTENG
LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Delivered:
This judgment was prepared and authored by the Judge whose name is
reflected and is handed down
electronically by circulation to the
Parties/their legal representatives by email and by uploading it to
the electronic file of
this matter on CaseLines. The date for
hand-down is deemed to be
on
14 August 2024
Heard
on:
31
July 2024
Delivered
on:
14
August 2024
Appearances:
Ms S
M[...] (in person):
for
the Applicant
Adv
G Olwagen-Meyer:
Magistrate
Booysen (in person):
for
the First Respondent
for
the Second Respondent
sino noindex
make_database footer start
Similar Cases
S.M v S.M.M (17851/2022) [2024] ZAGPJHC 558 (7 June 2024)
[2024] ZAGPJHC 558High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)100% similar
L.N v S.N (01588/2017) [2025] ZAGPJHC 266 (28 February 2025)
[2025] ZAGPJHC 266High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)100% similar
L.M v South African Broadcasting Corporation (SOC) Ltd (2021/46570) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1125; (2024) 45 ILJ 189 (GJ) (9 October 2023)
[2023] ZAGPJHC 1125High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)100% similar
L.S v J.S (23967/2012) [2024] ZAGPJHC 653 (2 August 2024)
[2024] ZAGPJHC 653High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)100% similar
L.M v M.M (A5008/2021) [2024] ZAGPJHC 325 (28 March 2024)
[2024] ZAGPJHC 325High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)100% similar