W.J v K.W and Another (2018/29229) [2024] ZAGPJHC 834 (26 August 2024)

W.J v K.W and Another (2018/29229) [2024] ZAGPJHC 834 (26 August 2024)

The court found that the Rule 43 order of 24 November 2021 expressly required the agreement of both parents before any change of school for the children. The first respondent enrolled the children at RH school without seeking or obtaining the applicant's agreement, thereby breaching the order. The respondent had knowledge of the order and failed to comply, satisfying the elements of contempt. The answering affidavit did not provide any justification or evidence of good faith, and the communications to the applicant demonstrated a high-handed and wilful disregard for his parental rights and the authority of the court. The applicant proved the requisites for a civil finding of contempt on a...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 834
Parties
Applicant: W.J; Respondent: K.W; Respondent: Kenneth Daniel Breukel
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 August 2024
Case Number
2018/29229
Procedural Posture
Contempt Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
The first respondent is declared to be in contempt of paragraph 3 of the Rule 43 order granted on 24 November 2021, having enrolled the children at a school without the applicant's prior agreement. Each party shall pay his/her own costs.
Judges
Liebenberg
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Parental Responsibilities and Rights, Uniform Rule 43, School Enrolment Without Consent, Children's Act Section 35
Family and Children Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Parental Responsibilities and Rights Uniform Rule 43 School Enrolment Without Consent Children's Act Section 35

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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

W.J

Applicant

K.W

Respondent

Kenneth Daniel Breukel

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the first respondent act in contempt of the Rule 43 order by enrolling the children in a new school without the applicant's prior agreement.
  2. 2 Does the conduct of the first respondent constitute wilful disregard of the applicant's parental rights and the authority of the court order.
  3. 3 Is the applicant entitled to a declaratory order of contempt against the first respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Rule 43 order of 24 November 2021 expressly required the agreement of both parents before any change of school for the children. The first respondent enrolled the children at RH school without seeking or obtaining the applicant's agreement, thereby breaching the order. The respondent had knowledge of the order and failed to comply, satisfying the elements of contempt. The answering affidavit did not provide any justification or evidence of good faith, and the communications to the applicant demonstrated a high-handed and wilful disregard for his parental rights and the authority of the court. The applicant proved the requisites for a civil finding of contempt on a...

Court Disposition

The first respondent is declared to be in contempt of paragraph 3 of the Rule 43 order granted on 24 November 2021, having enrolled the children at a school without the applicant's prior agreement. Each party shall pay his/her own costs.

Orders

  • The first respondent is declared to be in contempt of paragraph 3 of the order granted on 24 November 2021 by Acting Justice Clark, having enrolled the children born of the marriage at a school without the prior agreement of the applicant.
  • Each party shall pay his/her own costs.