SIBANDA v NDLOVU

The Court had previously dispensed with the requirement of written consent to grant a Divorce Judgment as an uncontested divorce. It was represented to the Court that Ndlovu had consented to have the Action proceed as an uncontested divorce but did not understand that she needed to formally consent. Upon being served with the Divorce Judgment Ndlovu advised that she opposed the divorce.

Veit J. held that the misunderstanding was because of language difficulties and not fraud, and that this was an appropriate situation to apply Rule 9.12 and set aside the Divorce Judgment.