EW and Others, Ex parte [2025] ZAGPPHC 109; [2025] 2 All SA 191 (GP); 2025 (4) SA 211 (GP) (24 January 2025)

EW and Others, Ex parte [2025] ZAGPPHC 109; [2025] 2 All SA 191 (GP); 2025 (4) SA 211 (GP) (24 January 2025)

The court found that EW had not established domicile or habitual residence in South Africa as required by the Children’s Act for confirmation of a surrogacy agreement. The evidence showed that EW and WG currently reside and work in Switzerland, with only an intention to return to South Africa contingent on future employment and redundancy. The property in Pretoria was purchased for EW’s parents and not intended as the applicants’ residence. There was insufficient corroboration from family members and uncertainty regarding the applicants’ financial stability and living arrangements in South Africa. The surrogacy agreement did not adequately provide for the child’s best interests,...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 109
Parties
Applicant: EW; Applicant: WG; Applicant: VF
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 January 2025
Case Number
094062/24
Procedural Posture
Ex Parte Application / Application for Confirmation of Surrogacy Agreement
Outcome
Application for confirmation of the surrogacy agreement dismissed.
Judges
Neukircher
Legal Topics
Surrogacy Agreement, Children's Act, Domicile Requirement, Habitual Residence, Best Interests of Child
Family and Children Surrogacy Agreement Children's Act Domicile Requirement Habitual Residence Best Interests of Child

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

EW

Applicant

WG

Applicant

VF

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Ex Parte Application / Application for Confirmation of Surrogacy Agreement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants meet the domicile and habitual residence requirements under the Children's Act for confirmation of a surrogacy agreement.
  2. 2 Whether the surrogacy agreement adequately provides for the child's best interests, including care, upbringing, and stability.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants' financial and living arrangements in South Africa are sufficiently stable and certain to satisfy statutory requirements.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that EW had not established domicile or habitual residence in South Africa as required by the Children’s Act for confirmation of a surrogacy agreement. The evidence showed that EW and WG currently reside and work in Switzerland, with only an intention to return to South Africa contingent on future employment and redundancy. The property in Pretoria was purchased for EW’s parents and not intended as the applicants’ residence. There was insufficient corroboration from family members and uncertainty regarding the applicants’ financial stability and living arrangements in South Africa. The surrogacy agreement did not adequately provide for the child’s best interests,...

Court Disposition

Application for confirmation of the surrogacy agreement dismissed.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.