Think Twice Before Rushing to Court on an Urgent Basis

The court recess period, commonly referred to as the “dies non” period, runs from approximately 15 December to 15 January each year. During this time, the courts hear only genuinely urgent matters. Litigants who rush to court without proving real urgency risk having their cases dismissed — and being ordered to pay legal costs.

A recent case serves as a stark warning.

In early January 2025, a divorced mother approached the court on an urgent basis seeking two orders against her ex-husband. Firstly, she wanted the court to compel him to consent to their 14-year-old daughter’s enrolment at a prestigious dance school in Cape Town. Secondly, she sought an additional R44,000 per month in maintenance over and above what he was already paying.

The daughter, who lived with her mother in Hermanus, was an exceptionally talented dancer representing South Africa internationally. The mother argued that attending the Cape Town school was essential for her daughter’s future success and development as a dancer.

The father, however, was fully compliant with his legal obligations. He was paying maintenance in accordance with the divorce order and was not in breach of any court directive. Importantly, he had proposed that the parties attempt mediation to resolve their differences.

The mediation process had already commenced but had not yet been completed.

On 23 December 2024, the mother demanded interim maintenance from the father pending the outcome of mediation and warned that she would apply to court if he refused. She argued that she earned only R6,000 per month and was supplementing her income by drawing approximately R30,000 monthly from the capital received in her divorce settlement.

She further contended that if her daughter missed the opportunity to join the dance programme in 2025, it could have a lasting impact on her future and prevent her from achieving her dreams.

The father opposed the application. He argued that the matter was neither urgent nor ripe for determination and maintained that any dispute regarding increased maintenance should be dealt with through a maintenance enquiry in the Maintenance Court. He also questioned whether a sudden relocation and change of schools would be in the child’s best interests.

The court agreed.

It found that the alleged urgency was largely self-created. The court criticised the mother for failing to disclose important facts and for not being fully transparent regarding the timelines presented. It also held that the mediation process should have been allowed to run its course before litigation was launched.

The result? The application was struck from the roll for lack of urgency, and the mother was ordered to pay the father’s legal costs.

The Lesson

Urgent court applications are reserved for truly exceptional circumstances. A litigant cannot create urgency through delay, incomplete disclosure, or by abandoning alternative dispute resolution processes prematurely.

Before rushing to court, obtain proper legal advice. A failed urgent application can be a costly exercise — both financially and strategically.

Know Your Rights!

The Law Desk of Fawzia Khan & Associates
Giving YOU the Power of Attorney.

For professional legal assistance at competitive rates, contact us on 031 502 5670 or email info@thelawdesk.co.za