Wayne Francois Strauss v Shorne Susette Strauss (born Jacobs) and Another

The applicant and first respondent are spouses in the process of divorcing. The applicant had left the former matrimonial home approximately seven months earlier and was barred from entering it under an interdict issued in terms of the Domestic Violence Act 116 of 1998. Anticipating occupation of a new rental property, the applicant sought urgent relief permitting him access to the former matrimonial home for six hours on each of two specified days to remove and personally pack his belongings, including sensitive electronic and specialised equipment. Extensive correspondence preceded the application. The respondent, through her attorneys, indicated that all the applicant’s personal items had been carefully packed and placed in the garage for collection, and that he could collect them without entering the home, alternatively by entering while accompanied by SAPS members. The applicant rejected these proposals, insisted on unrestricted access to the home without SAPS accompaniment, and launched urgent proceedings seeking such access.

The application was dismissed with costs on the ordinary scale.

The case underscores that a party’s right to personal property does not automatically entitle them to access a former matrimonial home, especially where a domestic violence interdict exists and reasonable arrangements for collection have been made. It reaffirms the strict requirements for final interdictory relief and the application of the Plascon-Evans rule in motion proceedings.