South Africa Case Law

B.U v C.M and Others (2025/017920)

B.U v C.M and Others (2025/017920) [2025] ZAWCHC 342 (12 August 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

2025/017920

Judge

Njokweni

The court found that the First Respondent's conditions for granting consent to the minor child's overseas travel were unreasonable and amounted to a refusal of consent. Despite the First Respondent's assertion that he did not oppose the travel, the conditions he sought to impose were excessive and not aligned with the child's best interests. The court exercised its jurisdiction under section 18(5) of the Children’s Act and section 28 of the Constitution, determining that the Applicant should be permitted to travel with the minor child to the Czech Republic, subject to reasonable conditions th…

Source excerpt

• Child Travel Consent
• Parental Responsibilities And Rights
• Best Interests Of Child
• Mirror Order
• Section 18 Children Act
• Section 28 Constitution

Haupt; Ex Parte Esterhuizen (21458/2021 ; 10857/2023), Ex parte

Haupt; Ex Parte Esterhuizen (21458/2021 ; 10857/2023), Ex parte [2025] ZAWCHC 330 (5 August 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

21458/2021 ; 10857/2023

Judge

Moosa

The court found, on the evidence of medical experts and curators ad litem, that both [L] and [R] suffer from severe disabilities rendering them incapable of managing their own affairs, thus meeting the jurisdictional requirements of Uniform Rule 57(13). The precedent in Ex parte Oppel was rejected as inconsistent with binding appellate authority and constitutional imperatives, particularly the best interests of the child standard. The court held that the appointment of a curator bonis is justified where substantial awards are at stake, the guardians lack financial expertise, and there is risk…

Source excerpt

• Curator Bonis Appointment
• Children With Disabilities
• Road Accident Fund Award
• Best Interests Of Child
• Uniform Rule 57
• Children S Act

R.F v J.S (Appeal) (A79/2025)

R.F v J.S (Appeal) (A79/2025) [2025] ZAWCHC 323 (31 July 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A79/2025

Judges

Nuku, O'Brien

The High Court struck an appeal from Children's Court interim and postponement orders as unappealable, holding the merits had not yet been determined.

• Appealability Of Interim Orders
• Best Interests Of Child
• Magistrates Court Act Section 83
• Children Act Section 42
• Appealability-of-interim-orders
• Childrens-court

P.C v C.C (2024-005569)

P.C v C.C (2024-005569) [2025] ZAGPPHC 762 (22 July 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2024-005569

Judge

Khashane La M Manamela

An urgent application to permanently change a minor child’s primary residence was postponed sine die for further Family Advocate or expert investigation.

• Primary Residence Of Minor Child
• Best Interests Of Child
• Rule 43 Interim Relief
• Family Advocate Report
• Psychological Assessment
• Costs In Divorce Action

M.D.P v W.T.P and Another (Appeal) (A139/2024)

M.D.P v W.T.P and Another (Appeal) (A139/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 300 (17 July 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A139/2024

Judges

Ndita, Savage, Mangcu-Lockwood

Appeal upheld in a child-residence dispute, with the court replacing a shared-residence order by a term/holiday split and immediate parenting coordination.

• Primary Residence Of Minor
• Parental Responsibilities And Rights
• Best Interests Of Child
• Parenting Coordinator
• School Holiday Contact
• Play Therapy

BHGH v GH (041781/2024)

BHGH v GH (041781/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 746 (16 July 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

041781/2024

Judge

Minnaar

The court found that the allegations of sexual misconduct against the applicant are serious and that the minor child, being under three years old, is particularly vulnerable. The best interests of the child must take precedence over the applicant’s right to contact. The interim protection order, which prohibits contact pending a forensic investigation, is justified given the gravity of the allegations. The applicant’s failure to anticipate the return date of the interim order and clear his name was noted as concerning. The court held that neither reinstatement of contact nor supervised contac…

Source excerpt

• Best Interests Of Child
• Parental Rights And Responsibilities
• Interim Protection Order
• Rule 43 Variation
• Supervised Contact

M.K v A.J.K (11407/2023)

M.K v A.J.K (11407/2023) [2025] ZAWCHC 288 (7 July 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

11407/2023

Judge

P. S. Van Zyl

The High Court held that the child should remain in the mother’s care in South Africa pending divorce, and refused interim relocation to Qatar absent safeguards.

• Child Relocation
• Best Interests Of Child
• Parental Care And Contact
• Expert Evidence
• Mirror Order
• Hague Convention

H.M.V.A and Another v T.H.B (2024/056100)

H.M.V.A and Another v T.H.B (2024/056100) [2025] ZAGPJHC 645 (27 June 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2024/056100

Judge

KL Meikle

The High Court dismissed a respondent’s application for leave to appeal in a grandparent-contact dispute, finding no reasonable prospects of success and awarding costs.

• Contact Rights Of Grandparents
• Best Interests Of Child
• Leave To Appeal Threshold
• Costs Award
• Grandparent-contact-rights
• Best-interests-of-the-child

City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality v Independent Institute of Education (Pty) Ltd and Others (2023/095869)

City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality v Independent Institute of Education (Pty) Ltd and Others (2023/095869) [2025] ZAGPJHC 629 (24 June 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/095869

Judge

Mudau

Leave to appeal was dismissed in a municipal rates-policy review, with the court finding no reasonable prospects of success or other compelling reason.

• Public Participation
• Rates Policy Review
• Best Interests Of Child
• Just And Equitable Remedy
• Municipal Powers
• Section 172 Constitution

Maleka v Nedbank Limited and Others (2025/083622)

Maleka v Nedbank Limited and Others (2025/083622) [2025] ZAGPJHC 625 (23 June 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2025/083622

Judge

Smit

The applicant failed to establish a clear or prima facie right to the relief sought. His 'interpleader affidavit' did not satisfy the requirements of Rule 45(5), as it did not constitute a valid suretyship or undertaking to produce the attached goods. The sheriff acted lawfully in executing the writ and removing the goods. The applicant's reliance on the best interests of the child under section 28(2) of the Constitution was misplaced, as he did not challenge the constitutionality of the underlying rules, and the principle of subsidiarity precludes direct reliance on the Constitution in such…

Source excerpt

• Stay Of Execution
• Interpleader Proceedings
• Urgent Application Principles
• Best Interests Of Child
• Suretyship Under Rule 45
• Subsidiarity Principle