TCE v EE (113234/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 118 (6 February 2025)

TCE v EE (113234/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 118 (6 February 2025)

The court held that, given the ages and maturity of K and T, their strong desire for independent representation, and the history of feeling excluded and unheard by the curator ad litem, it was appropriate and necessary to confirm the appointment of Adv Strauss as their legal representative. The court distinguished the roles of the curator ad litem (best interests) and the child-directed legal representative (expressed wishes), finding that both roles can coexist depending on the facts. The court found no mala fides in Adv Strauss’s conduct, acknowledged her procedural errors but determined they did not warrant removal. The children’s views had now been fully aired, and their participation...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 118
Parties
Applicant: TCE; Respondent: EE
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 February 2025
Case Number
113234/2023
Procedural Posture
Family Application / Application for Removal of Legal Representative for Minor Children During Divorce Trial
Outcome
Application for removal of Adv Strauss as legal representative for minor children dismissed with costs. Appointment of Adv Strauss confirmed for the duration of the trial on care, residence, and contact.
Judges
B Neukircher
Legal Topics
Legal Representation of Children, Curator Ad Litem, Divorce Proceedings, Best Interests of Child, Section 28 Constitution, Section 6 Divorce Act
Family and Children Legal Representation of Children Curator Ad Litem Divorce Proceedings Best Interests of Child Section 28 Constitution Section 6 Divorce Act

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TCE

Applicant

EE

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Application / Application for Removal of Legal Representative for Minor Children During Divorce Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appointment of a separate legal representative for the two minor children, K and T, is necessary in addition to the curator ad litem.
  2. 2 Whether Advocate Strauss overstepped her mandate and caused prejudice to the children or the proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether the costs of the legal representative should be borne by the parties and how they should be apportioned.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, given the ages and maturity of K and T, their strong desire for independent representation, and the history of feeling excluded and unheard by the curator ad litem, it was appropriate and necessary to confirm the appointment of Adv Strauss as their legal representative. The court distinguished the roles of the curator ad litem (best interests) and the child-directed legal representative (expressed wishes), finding that both roles can coexist depending on the facts. The court found no mala fides in Adv Strauss’s conduct, acknowledged her procedural errors but determined they did not warrant removal. The children’s views had now been fully aired, and their participation...

Court Disposition

Application for removal of Adv Strauss as legal representative for minor children dismissed with costs. Appointment of Adv Strauss confirmed for the duration of the trial on care, residence, and contact.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs, including those of the curator ad litem and Adv S Strauss.
  • Adv Strauss’s appointment as legal representative for K and T is confirmed under section 6(4) of the Divorce Act and the Directive dated 4 December 2024.