J.S v W.F (63698/13) [2020] ZAGPPHC 350 (10 July 2020)
The Court held that, in matters concerning minor children, jurisdiction is determined by statutory provisions and international law. Section 29 of the Children's Act excludes the Court's jurisdiction to grant relief that would terminate, extend, suspend, or restrict parental rights and responsibilities where the children are not ordinarily resident in its area. The children have resided in France for over eight years, making France their habitual residence and the competent jurisdiction for substantive orders affecting parental rights. However, the Court retains jurisdiction to vary or enforce its own orders made under the Divorce Act, including declaratory relief delineating parental...
- Citation
- [2020] ZAGPPHC 350
- Parties
- Applicant: J.S; Respondent: W.F
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 10 July 2020
- Case Number
- 63698/13
- Procedural Posture
- Urgent Application / Jurisdictional Determination on Stated Case Under Rule 33(1)
- Outcome
- The Court found it lacks jurisdiction to grant substantive relief under section 28 of the Children's Act for children not ordinarily resident in its area, but retains jurisdiction for declaratory relief and contempt proceedings regarding its own orders.
- Judges
- Van der Schyff
- Legal Topics
- Parental Responsibilities and Rights, Jurisdiction of High Court, Variation of Divorce Order, Contempt of Court, Habitual Residence, International Child Protection
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
J.S
Applicant
W.F
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Jurisdictional Determination on Stated Case Under Rule 33(1)
Legal Issues
- 1 Does the North Gauteng High Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate the main application, the variation application, and the contempt application concerning minor children residing in France?
- 2 Can the Court grant declaratory or substantive relief regarding parental rights and responsibilities when the children are not ordinarily resident in its jurisdiction?
- 3 Does the Court retain jurisdiction over its own orders for contempt proceedings when parties reside abroad?
Ratio Decidendi
The Court held that, in matters concerning minor children, jurisdiction is determined by statutory provisions and international law. Section 29 of the Children's Act excludes the Court's jurisdiction to grant relief that would terminate, extend, suspend, or restrict parental rights and responsibilities where the children are not ordinarily resident in its area. The children have resided in France for over eight years, making France their habitual residence and the competent jurisdiction for substantive orders affecting parental rights. However, the Court retains jurisdiction to vary or enforce its own orders made under the Divorce Act, including declaratory relief delineating parental...
Court Disposition
The Court found it lacks jurisdiction to grant substantive relief under section 28 of the Children's Act for children not ordinarily resident in its area, but retains jurisdiction for declaratory relief and contempt proceedings regarding its own orders.
Orders
- This Court does not have jurisdiction to grant relief amounting to termination, extension, suspension, or restriction of parental rights and responsibilities under section 28 of the Children's Act where the minor children are not ordinarily resident in its area of jurisdiction.
- This Court has jurisdiction to make declaratory orders delineating the applicant's rights as co-holder of parental responsibilities and rights and co-guardian of the minor children as informed by the settlement agreement incorporated in the decree of divorce and relevant provisions of the Children's Act, in terms of...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment