Judge strikes ‘scandalous’ rule 43 bid from roll
KZN High Court (Durban) Judge Robin Mossop has rebuked the lawyers of a divorcing woman who launched an application for interim maintenance and attached dozens of pictures to the application which included a picture of the husband’s lipstick- and semen-stained T-shirt.
According to a Pretoria News report, Mossop said rule 43 applications are interim in nature and thus speedy and swift procedures. He questioned how the lawyers allowed reams of irrelevant documentation to be handed to court, saying the wife’s sworn statement was ‘prolix in the extreme’.
‘It contains irrelevant allegations and has attached to it literally dozens of photographs, the precise relevance of which is not clear.’
Mossop said examples of these pictures were a photograph of a handbag allegedly purchased by the husband, and messages recorded on a cellphone relating to an incident involving Viagra pills.
This was apart from the lipstick- and semen-stained shirt.
‘It is, quite frankly, scandalous that the applicant’s legal advisers have permitted such irrelevancies to find a place in this application,’ the judge said.
The wife turned to court to obtain interim maintenance from her divorcing husband, pending the final divorce, notes the Pretoria News report.
Her lawyers filed 260 pages claiming they had set out the relevant facts.
But Mossop said the relief that the applicant claimed covered five pages of the notice of application, followed by her sworn statement which ran into about 57 pages.
The rest of the documentation – about 200 – were simply annexures such as the pictures relating to her husband’s alleged antics.
Mossop said the application before him was an abuse of the court process, which the court would not allow.
He said the applicant must first present an application that complied with the prescripts of rule 43 if she wanted her application to be considered and adjudicated upon.
Until she did so, and even in the absence of opposition from the respondent, it would not be considered.
In striking the matter from the roll, Mossop ordered that the wife’s legal team may not charge her at all for bringing the application to court.
Article disclaimer: While we have made every effort to ensure the accuracy of this article, it is not intended to provide final legal advice as facts and situations will differ from case to case, and therefore specific legal advice should be sought with a lawyer.
