Bosch v Van Vuuren - LexisNexis South Africa

21during the week commencing 5 November, which is to say, theweek in which the matter was to be heard.30 Given that the matter involves the wellbeing of a child, Iconsidered it appropriate to read all of the papers,notwithstanding the fact that they exceeded the number of setspermitted in terms of the Rules, and that leave for the filing ofadditional papers had not been obtained.31 The sad truth is that these papers, as voluminous as they are,contain very little which is relevant in the context of the presentapplication.Thus, for example, the papers (and in particularthose of the Respondent), are replete with allegations whichwere designed to show that the Applicant does not have as gooda relationship with his two daughters born of his earlier marriageas his papers suggest. To that end, the Respondent annexed toher papers a questionnaire which she directed to the Applicant’sex-wife (with whom she is apparently not on speaking terms)and responses to the questions posed therein. She also annexedphotographs of women with whom the Applicant is alleged tohave had intimate relationships– some of these in various statesof undress. As if this were not sufficient, the papers were evenburdened with an extract from “Beeld” newspaper, which