South Africa Case Law

City Mission t/a Cape Town Mission v City Mission Education Services t/a CMES and Others (20009/2017)

City Mission t/a Cape Town Mission v City Mission Education Services t/a CMES and Others (20009/2017) [2024] ZAWCHC 422 (13 December 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

20009/2017

Judge

Van den Berg AJ

The Court found that the plaintiff is the registered owner of the property and that the first defendant's occupation was initially lawful under a lease agreement, which was validly terminated after repeated breaches and expiry. The first defendant failed to regularise its occupation or pay arrears despite ample opportunity and notice. The arguments advanced by the first defendant regarding duress, conflict of interest, and zoning were unsupported by credible evidence and did not establish a legal right to remain. The Court considered the constitutional rights of the children and the obligatio…

Source excerpt

• Eviction Of Unlawful Occupier
• Rei Vindicatio
• Best Interests Of The Child
• Lease Agreement Termination
• Horizontal Application Of Bill Of Rights
• School Relocation

A.V and Another v D.C and Others (40522/19)

A.V and Another v D.C and Others (40522/19) [2024] ZAGPJHC 626; [2024] 3 All SA 724 (GJ) (26 June 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

40522/19

Judge

Vally

The court found that DC was not merely a sperm donor, as the agreement and conduct of the parties went beyond a typical donor arrangement. However, no co-parenting agreement as envisaged by law was concluded, as the agreement lacked essential elements such as guardianship and comprehensive decision-making. AV and NZ, as permanent life partners, invoked the benefit of the Constitutional Court’s reading-in remedy, and are recognised as Z’s legal parents with full parental rights and responsibilities. DC, while not a parent under the Act, is entitled to contact and care rights under section 23 d…

Source excerpt

• Artificial Fertilisation
• Parental Rights And Responsibilities
• Best Interests Of The Child
• Life Partnerships
• Constitutional Invalidity
• Maintenance Orders

Centre for Child Law and Others v South African Council for Educators and Others (1289/2022)

Centre for Child Law and Others v South African Council for Educators and Others (1289/2022) [2024] ZASCA 45; 2024 (4) SA 473 (SCA) (9 April 2024)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1289/2022

Judges

Nicholls, Mbatha, Mothle, Tolmay, Mbhele

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that SACE unlawfully fettered its statutory discretion by applying its mandatory sanctions policy as rigid rules, failing to consider the individual circumstances of each case. The disciplinary proceedings were procedurally unfair as the affected children and their parents were denied meaningful participation and the opportunity to be heard on appropriate sanctions. SACE committed a material error of law by not considering rehabilitative and corrective sanctions, contrary to constitutional and statutory obligations to act in the best interests of the child. T…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Disciplinary Proceedings
• Best Interests Of The Child
• Rehabilitative Sanctions
• Procedural Fairness
• Child Participation

C.S.S v O.R (000763/2024)

C.S.S v O.R (000763/2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 37 (26 January 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

000763/2024

Judge

Phooko

The court found the matter urgent due to the imminent school term and the need to protect the children's best interests. However, it declined to grant the applicant's request for immediate return of the children, citing the absence of a Family Advocate investigation and the need to consider the children's views and welfare. The court ordered the Family Advocate to urgently investigate and report on the children's best interests regarding residence and contact. Pending this report, the children are to remain with the respondent, with the applicant granted reasonable contact. The respondent may…

Source excerpt

• Best Interests Of The Child
• Urgent Interim Relief
• Family Advocate Investigation
• Parental Responsibilities And Rights
• Primary Residence Dispute

T.R.S v U.A.R and Others (2023-019086)

T.R.S v U.A.R and Others (2023-019086) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1225 (27 October 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023-019086

Judge

S D J Wilson

The court postponed a child relocation dispute, restrained the applicant’s deportation pending final determination, and discharged an earlier interdict.

• Relocation Of Minor Children
• Best Interests Of The Child
• Interim Interdict
• Postponement Of Hearing
• Deportation Restraint
• Section 165 Constitution

I.B.F v A.D.K and Another (2023-015928)

I.B.F v A.D.K and Another (2023-015928) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1129 (31 August 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2023-015928

Judge

Swanepoel

The court found that the Hague Convention does not apply as Sint Maarten is not a signatory. The paramount consideration is the best interests of the children, as required by the Children’s Act and the Constitution. The evidence demonstrated severe parental alienation, with the applicant enlisting the children as allies against the respondent and exposing them to litigation details, causing emotional harm. The children are settled and happy in South Africa and strongly opposed to returning to Sint Maarten. Returning them would exacerbate their trauma. Both parties have failed the children, bu…

Source excerpt

• Parental Alienation
• Child Abduction
• Best Interests Of The Child
• Hague Convention
• Care And Contact
• Therapy And Parental Coordination

J.K.R.S v D.S (3095/2023)

J.K.R.S v D.S (3095/2023) [2023] ZAMPMHC 28 (30 August 2023)

Court

Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

3095/2023

Judge

L J N Bam

The court found that although the respondent is free to relocate and pursue her own life, the rights and best interests of the minor children are paramount. The respondent's failure to consult the applicant, a co-holder of parental rights, before making arrangements for relocation constituted a violation of both the applicant's and the children's rights. The court considered the disruption to the children's schooling and routine, particularly the negative impact on the eldest child, to be a reasonable concern. The court held that major decisions affecting the children require joint participat…

Source excerpt

• Children's Act 38 Of 2005
• Relocation Of Minor Children
• Parental Rights And Responsibilities
• Best Interests Of The Child
• Interim Interdict
• Schooling Disruption

H v H (44450/22)

H v H (44450/22) [2022] ZAGPJHC 904; [2023] 1 All SA 413 (GJ); 2023 (6) SA 279 (GJ) (30 September 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

44450/22

Judge

Victor

The court found that the applicant, as the financially disadvantaged spouse and primary caregiver, is entitled to a substantial contribution towards legal costs and interim maintenance under Rule 43. The respondent's considerable means and lifestyle were contrasted with the applicant's limited resources and the children's comfort with her. The court emphasised that Rule 43 must be interpreted and applied through the prism of constitutional rights, particularly equality and access to justice, to ensure both parties can litigate on an equal footing. The best interests of the minor children were…

Source excerpt

• Rule 43 Interim Relief
• Contribution To Legal Costs
• Parental Responsibilities And Rights
• Best Interests Of The Child
• Maintenance Pendente Lite
• Equality Before The Law

Centre for Child Law v Director of Public Prosecutions, Johannesburg and Others (CCT210/21)

Centre for Child Law v Director of Public Prosecutions, Johannesburg and Others (CCT210/21) [2022] ZACC 35; 2022 (12) BCLR 1440 (CC); 2022 (2) SACR 629 (CC) (29 September 2022)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 210/21

Judges

Kollapen, Madlanga, Majiedt, Mathopo, Mlambo, Mhlantla, Theron, Tshiqi, Unterhalter

The Constitutional Court held that section 4(b) of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992 is unconstitutional to the extent that it criminalises the use and/or possession of cannabis by a child. The Court found that criminalisation exposes children to avoidable trauma, stigma, and a criminal record, infringing their rights to dignity and their best interests as protected by section 28 of the Constitution. The Court emphasised that less restrictive, rehabilitative means exist under the Children’s Act and the Prevention of and Treatment for Substance Abuse Act, which are more appropriat…

Source excerpt

• Best Interests Of The Child
• Criminalisation Of Cannabis
• Section 28 Constitution
• Status Offence
• Decriminalisation
• Child Justice Act

T.R and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Others; R.W.A and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (3919/20;12667/20)

T.R and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Others; R.W.A and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (3919/20;12667/20) [2022] ZAWCHC 115; [2022] 3 All SA 918 (WCC); 2022 (5) SA 534 (WCC) (7 June 2022)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

3919/20;12667/20

Judge

M Sher

The court found that the Immigration Act and related regulations, to the extent that they require foreign parents who were holders of spousal visas to leave South Africa and cease working upon termination of their spousal relationships, unjustifiably limit the constitutional rights to dignity and parental care of both the parents and their South African children. The legislative scheme fails to give effect to the best interests of the child, as required by the Constitution and international instruments. The court held that the respondents did not demonstrate that the limitations imposed are r…

Source excerpt

• Immigration Status
• Parental Responsibilities And Rights
• Best Interests Of The Child
• Constitutional Invalidity
• Reading In Remedy
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act