A.E. v H.L. (2024/144979) [2025] ZAGPJHC 770 (8 August 2025)

SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy

REPUBLIC

OF SOUTH AFRICA

IN

THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG

Case Number: 2024-144979

In the matter between:

A[…] E[…]

Applicant

and

H[…] L[…]

Respondent

JUDGMENT

Nieuwoudt, AJ

[1] This matter became before me as a Rule 43 on 4 August 2025 in which the Applicant is seeking contact and the Respondent with a counter application is seeking maintenance for a minor child.

[2] Before dealing with application itself I wish to summarize some of the facts relevant to the order I intend to make.

[3] The Applicant issued a divorce summons in December 2024 in which he prayers for the following [I paraphrase the prayers] –

3.1 A decree of divorce

3.2 Payment of half of the accrual

3.3 Residency of the minor child to the Defendant [Respondent in this matter]

3.4 Contact with the minor child

[4] The Respondent defended the divorce and filed a counterclaim in which she asks for the following [again my own paraphrasing of the prayers] –

4.1 A decree of divorce

4.2 Residence of the minor child

4.3 Contact as advised by a social worker or Family Advocate

4.4 Appointment of a Parental Co-ordinator

4.5 Maintenance for the minor child in the amount of R11450

4.6 Contribution medical expenses and scholastic expenses

4.7 Half of the accrual

[5] From the pleadings the following is common cause

5.1 That the parties were married on 24 September 2022 out community of property subject to the accrual system

5.2 A minor child H[…] E[…] was born on 5 December 2023

[6] What would need to be ventilated at trail, if the matter is not settled are the following aspects –

6.1 The manner of contact between the minor child and the Applicant/Plaintiff

6.2 The amount of maintenance payable by the Applicant/Plaintiff for the minor child

6.3 Determination of the accrual

[7] In December 2024 the Applicant launched the Rule 43, which was argued before me on 4 August 2025 in which he is asking for contact with the minor child. As in his summons he made no offer to pay maintenance.

[8] The Respondent launched a counter application in which she is seeking

8.1 Maintenance in the amount of R11450

8.2 Contribution for legal costs in the amount of R350 000

8.3 Contact is offered but subject to certain conditions.

[9] I will deal with the maintenance of the minor child first –

9.1 During argument counsel for the Applicant made an offer for maintenance in the amount of R6000 and 50% of schooling expenses for the minor child starting 2026.

9.2 On my request the Respondent’s counsel put forward an amount of R9000 per month as maintenance for the minor child and they accepted the offer from the Applicant to pay 50% of the school expenses of the minor child from 2026.

[10] I perused the financial disclosure forms of both the Applicant and the Respondent and have looked at the very comprehensive spreadsheet of the Respondent which spreadsheet really assist the court. I am satisfied that the Respondent made out a case for maintenance for the minor child and I will make an order that the Applicant pays pendite lite R8000.00 per month maintenance for the minor child. A further order will be made with regards the school expenses for the minor child starting 2026.

[11] There was further a request from the Respondent that the Applicant should contribute towards legal costs in the amount of R350 000 payable in 10 instalments. I am not inclined to make such an order for the following reasons-

11.1 The only real dispute that might need litigation is the dispute around the contact between the Applicant and the minor child.

11.2 These kinds of disputes should not be litigated. Parents should raise their children as co-parents without the assistance of judges and advocates.

11.3 The way the Respondent has approached this dispute by throwing the proverbial book at the problem is alarming. She has not only followed the approach in her counterclaim but also in her counter-application.

11.4 This approach to include a bunch of professionals in the life of the minor child is not encouraging co-parenting which is essential for the minor child’s well-being.

11.5 The dispute around the accrual is with respect a rand and cent exercise which does not need litigation but rather mediation

[12] This brings me to the issue around contact between the minor child and her father, the Applicant.

12.1 The Applicant admits that he has a drinking problem and the hair follicle test that was handed up to the court confirms this. Any contact order that is therefore made should take this problem into consideration.

12.2 I do not see in the papers that the Applicant is receiving any treatment for this addiction and therefore I will address this issue in my order.

12.3 I pointed out to the counsel for the Respondent that I do not agree with the manner her client is approaching this issue of contact, and this was also debated with her and counsel for the Applicant.

12.4 Section 6(4)(a) of the Children’s Act, Act 38 of 2005 is very clear: ‘In any matter concerning a child an approach which is conducive to conciliation and problem-solving should be followed and a confrontational approach should be avoided.

12.5 To keep with this principle, I requested the counsel for the parties to provide me with a draft order appointing an expert to assist the parties to be a co-parent and assisting with the facilitation of contact between the Applicant and the minor child. I thank them for their assistance.

I therefore make the following order –

1. Pendite lite the Applicant is to pay maintenance for the minor child in the amount of R8000.00 [Eight Thousand Rand] per month on or before the 7th of every month. The Respondent is to provide the Applicant with the bank account details in which this money is to be paid within 4 days of this order.

2. Pendente lite and with effect January 2026 the Applicant is to pay 50% [fifty percent] of the minor child’s scholastic expenses i.e. fees for her enrollment in a creche or similar daycare facility.

3. Pendente lite the Applicant and the Respondent will be co-holders of parental rights and responsibilities as set out in Section 18(1) and (2) of the Children’s Act, Act 38 of 2005 with regards the minor child H[…] E[…] [Date of birth 5 December 2023]. The rights and responsibilities to be exercised as follow –

a. The minor child will reside with the Respondent

b. The Applicant will have contact with the minor child initially every Tuesday and Thursday from 11h30 – 14h30 and every alternative Saturday and Sunday from 15h00 to 18h00. If any of these visits fall over an eating time or bath time of the minor child the Applicant should be allowed subject to the rest of the order, to participate in those events.

4. Ms ERICA STRYDOM, an educational psychologist is hereby appointed to assist with a family preservation program to the benefit of the minor child which program will consist of the following –

a. Parenting co-ordination in terms of her own mandate

b. Parental guidance with specific focus on conflict resolution, communication and joint decision making

c. Supervising the visits between the minor child and the Applicant and assist the Applicant if necessary, with skills to deal with an infant of this age

d. Testing the Applicant for alcohol abuse at random times which might be times not linked to a visit. The method of testing the court will leave in the hands of Ms Strydom

e. Monitoring the therapy of the Applicant for substance abuse with a therapist appointed by her. If she is of the opinion that the Respondent is in need of trauma therapy, she can refer her to a therapist to deal with her trauma

f. To assist the parties to draft a parenting plan that will assist them to co-parent their child and more specifically deal with the contact between the Applicant and the minor child

g. If the Applicant in the opinion of Ms Strydom arrives at a visit under the influence of any substance she is authorized to terminate the visit

h. The pendite lite contact rights will stay in place for at least three months during which time the parties are to co-operate with Ms Strydom to draft an interim parenting plan dealing with contact but also specifically with the schooling of the minor child in 2026

5. The cost of Ms Strydom will be covered by the parties in equal shares, accept the cost of their individual therapy, which will be for their individual accounts and also any costs relating to the alcohol testing which will be for the account of the Applicant.

6. This order is to be transmitted to Ms Strydom within 7 days of granting the order. Ms Strydom is requested to indicate within 4 days receipt of the order if she is willing to take up the mandate. If not, the order is to be sent to Family Reconnect and they will then replace Ms Strydom, and their name should be read in wherever the court refers to Ms Strydom.

7. Cost of this application is costs in the cause

NIEUWOUDT, E

ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG

Date of Hearing:

4 August 2025

Date of Judgment:

8 August 2025

Appearances:

For the Applicant:

Adv Scott

Instructed by:

Malan Attorneys

For the Respondent:

Adv Van der Merwe

Instructed by:

Malherbe Rigg and Ranwell Inc.