S.A.H. v S.B.H. (2025/038564) [2025] ZAGPJHC 538 (5 June 2025)

S.A.H. v S.B.H. (2025/038564) [2025] ZAGPJHC 538 (5 June 2025)

The court found that the respondent failed to discharge the onus imposed by section 18(3) of the Superior Courts Act. No exceptional circumstances or irreparable harm were proven to justify the interim relocation of the minor child pending appeal. The evidence showed that the child’s established life in Johannesburg would be irreparably disrupted by premature relocation, and the appellant would suffer real and tangible prejudice to his parental relationship and the child’s emotional stability. The respondent’s personal and familial circumstances did not rise to the level required by the statute, and the absence of oral evidence and conflicting expert reports further undermined the case...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPJHC 538
Parties
Appellant: S.A.H.; Respondent: S.B.H.
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 June 2025
Case Number
2025/038564
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Automatic Appeal Under Section 18(4)(a)(ii) of the Superior Courts Act
Outcome
Appeal upheld; execution of the relocation order suspended pending appeal.
Judges
L. Windell, A. Maier-Frawley, M.P. Motha
Legal Topics
Relocation of Minor Child, Execution Pending Appeal, Exceptional Circumstances, Irreparable Harm, Best Interests of Child
Family and Children Civil Procedure Relocation of Minor Child Execution Pending Appeal Exceptional Circumstances Irreparable Harm 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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S.A.H.

Appellant

S.B.H.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Automatic Appeal Under Section 18(4)(a)(ii) of the Superior Courts Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the requirements of section 18(3) of the Superior Courts Act for execution of a relocation order pending appeal were satisfied.
  2. 2 Whether exceptional circumstances and irreparable harm were proven to justify interim relocation of the minor child.
  3. 3 Whether the court a quo erred in granting execution of the relocation order despite disputed facts and absence of oral evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent failed to discharge the onus imposed by section 18(3) of the Superior Courts Act. No exceptional circumstances or irreparable harm were proven to justify the interim relocation of the minor child pending appeal. The evidence showed that the child’s established life in Johannesburg would be irreparably disrupted by premature relocation, and the appellant would suffer real and tangible prejudice to his parental relationship and the child’s emotional stability. The respondent’s personal and familial circumstances did not rise to the level required by the statute, and the absence of oral evidence and conflicting expert reports further undermined the case...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; execution of the relocation order suspended pending appeal.

Orders

  • The appeal in terms of section 18(4)(a)(ii) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 is upheld.
  • Paragraph 41(c) of the order granted by Van der Merwe AJ on 29 April 2025 is set aside.