JVDM and Others (104620/2024), Ex parte [2025] ZAGPPHC 187; 2025 (4) SA 616 (GP) (24 February 2025)

JVDM and Others (104620/2024), Ex parte [2025] ZAGPPHC 187; 2025 (4) SA 616 (GP) (24 February 2025)

The court found that the surrogate motherhood agreement complied with all requirements of Chapter 19 of the Children’s Act. Medical evidence from two specialists confirmed that the third applicant, CB, is healthy and capable of safely gestating another pregnancy and undergoing a sixth caesarean section. There is no statutory or regulatory limitation on the number of surrogacies or caesarean sections, and the surrogacy is altruistic, not commercial. The absence of legislative restriction is not for the court to remedy, as to do so would violate the separation of powers. Comparative research confirms that South Africa does not impose such limits. The agreement provides adequately for the...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 187
Parties
Applicant: JVDM; Applicant: MVDM; Applicant: CB; Applicant: SEB; Respondent: Centre for Child Law
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 February 2025
Case Number
104620/2024
Procedural Posture
Ex Parte Application / Confirmation of Surrogate Motherhood Agreement
Outcome
Application granted; surrogate motherhood agreement confirmed.
Judges
Neukircher
Legal Topics
Surrogacy Agreement, Children S Act, Parental Rights, Altruistic Surrogacy, Medical Screening, Separation of Powers
Family and Children Surrogacy Agreement Children S Act Parental Rights Altruistic Surrogacy Medical Screening Separation of Powers

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JVDM

Applicant

MVDM

Applicant

CB

Applicant

SEB

Applicant

Centre for Child Law

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Ex Parte Application / Confirmation of Surrogate Motherhood Agreement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the surrogate motherhood agreement should be confirmed under Chapter 19 of the Children’s Act 38 of 2005.
  2. 2 Whether the third applicant, having undergone five previous caesarean sections, is medically suitable to act as a surrogate mother again.
  3. 3 Whether there is any legal or regulatory limitation on the number of times a woman may act as a surrogate or undergo caesarean sections.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the surrogate motherhood agreement complied with all requirements of Chapter 19 of the Children’s Act. Medical evidence from two specialists confirmed that the third applicant, CB, is healthy and capable of safely gestating another pregnancy and undergoing a sixth caesarean section. There is no statutory or regulatory limitation on the number of surrogacies or caesarean sections, and the surrogacy is altruistic, not commercial. The absence of legislative restriction is not for the court to remedy, as to do so would violate the separation of powers. Comparative research confirms that South Africa does not impose such limits. The agreement provides adequately for the...

Court Disposition

Application granted; surrogate motherhood agreement confirmed.

Orders

  • The Surrogate Motherhood Agreement entered into between the parties on 15 August 2024 and the addendum dated 1 November 2024 is confirmed.
  • Any child/children born of the third applicant under the agreement are for all purposes the child/children of the first and second applicants from birth.