Ex parte Hendrikse: In re Louw

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judgment Date: 29 September 1988
• Citation: 1990 (3) SA 227 (C)

Ex parte Hendrikse: In re Louw
1990 (3) SA 227 (C)

1990 (3) SA p227

Citation	1990 (3) SA 227 (C)
Court	Kaapse Provinsiale Afdeling
Judge	King R
Heard	September 22, 1988; September 23, 1988
Judgment	September 29, 1988

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Kurator — Kurator ad litem — Aanstelling van — Aansoek om aanstelling van prokureur as kurator ad litem — Pasiënt woonagtig ver van Hofsetel en aangevoer dat aanstelling van plaaslike prokureur meer gerieflik en goedkoper sou wees as aanstelling van advokaat — Hof bevind dat ingevolge Eenvormige Hofreël 57(5) advokaat aangestel moes word 'waar I doenlik' en in onderhawige geval nie ondoenlik om advokaat aan te stel nie.

Headnote : Kopnota

In 'n aansoek om 'n prokureur aan te stel as kurator ad litem vir 'n bejaarde vrou wat ver van die Hofsetel gewoon het is aangevoer dat tyd en onkostes bespaar sou word indien 'n plaaslike prokureur aangestel word in plek van 'n advokaat by die Hof se setel. Die Hof was van mening J dat ingevolge Eenvormige Hofreël 57(5) moes 'n

1990 (3) SA p228

A kurator ad litem 'waar doenlik' 'n advokaat wees en in die onderhawige geval was dit geensins ondoenlik dat 'n advokaat aangestel word nie en is dit derhalwe gelas dat 'n advokaat aangestel word.

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Curator — Curator ad litem — Appointment of — Application for B appointment of attorney as curator ad litem — Patient resident far from seat of Court and contended that it would be more convenient and cheaper if local attorney were appointed instead of an advocate — Court holding that in terms of Uniform Rule of Court 57(5) an advocate had to be appointed 'where practicable' and in the instant case the appointment of an advocate was not impracticable.

Headnote : Kopnota

In an application for the appointment of an attorney as the curator ad C litem to an aged woman who lived far from the seat of the Court it was contended that time and money would be saved by the appointment of a local attorney instead of an advocate at the seat of the Court. The Court held that in terms of Rule 57(5) of the Uniform Rules of Court an advocate had to be appointed 'where practicable' and that in the present case the appointment of an advocate was not at all impracticable and it was accordingly ordered that an advocate be appointed. D

Case Information

Aansoek om die aanstelling van 'n kurator ad litem. Die feite blyk uit die uitspraak.

...