Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
S.H v T.N.H (021850/2023) [2024] ZAGPJHC 900 (2 September 2024)
Rule 43 relief granted in part: phased extended contact was ordered, maintenance fixed at 50% of children’s expenses, and family advocate investigation refused.
DM v CHP (B6773/23) [2024] ZAGPPHC 76 (4 January 2024)
The respondent’s unilateral decision to relocate the child and restrict the applicant’s contact rights constitutes a breach of both the parties’ agreement and section 31(2) of the Children’s Act, which requires consultation and consideration of the co-holder’s views before making decisions that significantly affect parental rights. The evidence does not support the respondent’s claim of having relocated, and the applicant presented objective proof that the child’s life remains centred in Pretoria. The urgency of the matter is established by the immediate and adverse impact on the child’s rela…
Source excerpt
F.P.K v A.K (2023-055679) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1279 (9 November 2023)
Rule 43 interim relief on child contact and maintenance: the court phased in unsupervised contact, fixed child maintenance, and dismissed the mother’s personal maintenance and costs claims.
JJVW v NVW (2019/26732) [2022] ZAGPJHC 808 (18 October 2022)
The High Court varied a Rule 43 interim order in a divorce matter, suspending spousal maintenance pending financial disclosure and setting a new supervised contact regime.
C.S.M v F.Y.G (94700/19) [2020] ZAGPPHC 211 (5 May 2020)
Rule 43 interim relief was granted in a family dispute, including maintenance, school fees, legal-cost contribution, and structured contact with the children.
J.J.S v M.B.W (69408/2019) [2020] ZAGPPHC 84 (22 February 2020)
The court found that both parties acknowledged the importance of the minor child maintaining contact with both parents. The evidence did not establish that the applicant posed any threat or danger to the child. Reports from professionals supported the applicant's suitability for contact. The respondent's restriction of contact was not justified, and the arrangements proposed by both parties largely aligned except for the respondent's insistence on supervised visits, which the court rejected. The court held that joint parental rights and reasonable contact arrangements were in the best interes…
Source excerpt
L M v R T (28133/2009) [2018] ZAGPJHC 676 (16 November 2018)
The High Court enforced parts of a divorce-related order, directed child therapy and passport steps, and held that only 50% of jointly registered property proceeds formed part of the applicant’s estate.
Stofile v Mvulane and Others (44641/2016) [2018] ZAGPJHC 426 (12 June 2018)
The applicant failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondents wilfully and in bad faith disobeyed the court orders regarding contact with the children. The evidence presented, including the applicant's own version, does not establish deliberate or mala fide conduct by the respondents. The difficulties in contact and the children's reluctance to travel with the applicant are not sufficient to infer contempt. The court finds reasonable doubt as to the respondents' intention and rejects the application for contempt.
Source excerpt
N v N (4963/2016) [2016] ZAFSHC 207 (1 December 2016)
Interim relief in a family matter: both parents received parental responsibilities and rights, with the child’s primary residence remaining with the applicant.
R.G.T v M.S.D (64290/14) [2015] ZAGPPHC 314 (20 March 2015)
The court found that the settlement agreement, as incorporated into the divorce order, clearly distinguished between weekend visitation (subject to the child being seven years old) and the sharing of long and short school holidays (not subject to age). The respondent's refusal to allow the applicant contact during the June 2014 holidays was based on a misinterpretation of the agreement and was unjustified. The respondent failed to discharge the evidential burden to show that her non-compliance was not wilful. Her conduct demonstrated intentional disobedience of the court order, amounting to c…
Source excerpt
Explore more
