RA v FA 2024 ZAWCHC 35 (002)

Judgment from the Cape Town High Court regarding an application in terms of Rule 45A to suspend the operation and execution of a Rule 43(6) order. The applicant had a Rule 43(6) order granted against him after no appearance was made at the hearing of the matter. The applicant, in turn, made an application for the suspension of the Rule 43(6) order as he had been provided with the incorrect date of the hearing by his erstwhile attorney, and the applicant had planned on appearing to postpone the matter whilst he obtained new legal representation.

The Court confirmed that the guiding principle of an application in terms of Rule 45A is the interest of justice. Generally, a Court will grant a stay of execution where real and substantial justice requires such a stay, or where real injustice would otherwise be done or caused. In this instance, the Court found the Applicant would suffer irreparable harm if the Rule 43(6) order was enforced against him as he would have been incarcerated for not complying with same. As such, the operation and execution of the Rule 43(6) order was suspended.

RA v FA 2024 ZAWCHC 35 (002)

2024-04-02T08:21:59+00:002024/04/02|Uncategorized|
Go to Top