R.G.T v M.S.D and Another (87688/19) [2021] ZAGPPHC 664 (9 September 2021)

R.G.T v M.S.D and Another (87688/19) [2021] ZAGPPHC 664 (9 September 2021)

The applicant's right of contact and visitation with the minor child is established both by statute and the settlement agreement, which stipulates that consent for travel outside South Africa must not be unreasonably withheld. The first respondent's refusal to cooperate in the passport application and to grant consent is found to be unreasonable and contrary to the best interests of the child, which are paramount. The respondent's fears regarding abduction are speculative and have been addressed by the existence of an extradition treaty. Maintenance arrears do not justify withholding access. The acrimonious relationship between the parties is not a valid legal reason to deny visitation...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 664
Parties
Applicant: R.G.T; Respondent: M.S.D; Respondent: Director-General, Home Affairs
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 September 2021
Case Number
87688/19
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Determination After Hearing
Outcome
Application granted in part; operative orders issued as to passport application and consent, with costs not awarded.
Judges
Mthimunye
Legal Topics
Child Passport Application, Parental Consent, Best Interests of Child, Visitation Rights, Settlement Agreement Enforcement
Family and Children Civil Procedure Child Passport Application Parental Consent Best Interests of Child Visitation Rights Settlement Agreement Enforcement

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R.G.T

Applicant

M.S.D

Respondent

Director-General, Home Affairs

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Determination After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has a clear right to have the minor child visit him abroad.
  2. 2 Whether the first respondent's refusal to cooperate in the passport application and consent process is unreasonable.
  3. 3 Whether there is an adequate alternative remedy available to the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's right of contact and visitation with the minor child is established both by statute and the settlement agreement, which stipulates that consent for travel outside South Africa must not be unreasonably withheld. The first respondent's refusal to cooperate in the passport application and to grant consent is found to be unreasonable and contrary to the best interests of the child, which are paramount. The respondent's fears regarding abduction are speculative and have been addressed by the existence of an extradition treaty. Maintenance arrears do not justify withholding access. The acrimonious relationship between the parties is not a valid legal reason to deny visitation...

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; operative orders issued as to passport application and consent, with costs not awarded.

Orders

  • The first respondent is directed to complete the necessary forms for the application of the minor child's passport and submit such documentation to the second respondent, and to take all necessary steps as may be required by the second respondent to that end, within thirty (30) days from the date of this order.
  • The first respondent is directed to provide the applicant with a certified copy of her Identity Document and an affidavit granting the applicant permission to travel with the minor child to Dubai or any other country in which the applicant may be resident.