E.G v M.G (2023-076058) [2024] ZAGPJHC 252 (11 March 2024)

E.G v M.G (2023-076058) [2024] ZAGPJHC 252 (11 March 2024)

The court found that both parents had prima facie rights regarding the children, but the applicant failed to demonstrate a well-grounded apprehension of irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured granting the interim interdict. The respondent had provided sufficient evidence of arrangements in Cape Town and was willing to cooperate with the Family Advocate. The applicant's reliance on hearsay evidence and last-minute affidavits was rejected. The court concluded that the application for an interim interdict should be dismissed, but recognised the importance of ensuring continued contact between the applicant and the children. Given the welfare of the minor children and...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 252
Parties
Applicant: E[...] H[...] V[...] G[…]; Respondent: M[...] B[...] V[...] G[...]
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 March 2024
Case Number
2023-076058
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Urgent Interim Interdict Proceedings
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted to the full court; costs to be costs in the appeal.
Judges
Y Carrim
Legal Topics
Relocation of Minor Children, Interim Interdict, Best Interests of Child, Leave to Appeal, Admissibility of Evidence
Family and Children Civil Procedure Relocation of Minor Children Interim Interdict Best Interests of Child Leave to Appeal Admissibility of Evidence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

E[...] H[...] V[...] G[…]

Applicant

M[...] B[...] V[...] G[...]

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Urgent Interim Interdict Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent and minor children may relocate to Cape Town pending investigation by the Family Advocate.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant established a prima facie right and well-grounded apprehension of irreparable harm justifying an interim interdict.
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience favours granting the interim interdict.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that both parents had prima facie rights regarding the children, but the applicant failed to demonstrate a well-grounded apprehension of irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured granting the interim interdict. The respondent had provided sufficient evidence of arrangements in Cape Town and was willing to cooperate with the Family Advocate. The applicant's reliance on hearsay evidence and last-minute affidavits was rejected. The court concluded that the application for an interim interdict should be dismissed, but recognised the importance of ensuring continued contact between the applicant and the children. Given the welfare of the minor children and...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted to the full court; costs to be costs in the appeal.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is granted to the full court.
  • Costs of this application to be costs in the appeal.