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
A.E. v H.L. (2024/144979) [2025] ZAGPJHC 770 (8 August 2025)
In a Rule 43 divorce interim application, the High Court ordered child maintenance, limited contact, and expert family-preservation intervention after concerns about the applicant's alcohol use.
T.S v J.V.C.P and Another (20783/24) [2025] ZAWCHC 325 (1 August 2025)
The applicant failed to establish the jurisdictional facts necessary for an anti-dissipation interdict. There is no objective evidence that the respondent is intentionally dissipating or secreting assets to defeat the applicant's claims. The respondent continues to meet his maintenance obligations for the minor child and has not abdicated his responsibilities. The applicant's apprehension of harm is not supported by the facts, and her conduct in disposing of joint assets for personal benefit undermines her case. The balance of convenience favours the respondent, and the applicant has alternat…
Source excerpt
O.M.L v S.S.L (10528/2022) [2025] ZAGPPHC 712 (16 July 2025)
The court held that a twice-signed settlement agreement was valid and binding, rejected the defendant’s claim of misunderstanding, and granted a divorce.
S.R. v S.T.M. (2022/048303) [2025] ZAGPJHC 691 (15 July 2025)
The High Court ordered the respondent to file a financial disclosure form in a Rule 43 dispute, rejecting privacy objections and holding that disclosure remained required despite a disputed marriage.
S.Z.M v M.N.M (127136/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 614 (11 June 2025)
Rule 43 interim relief was granted in part: spousal maintenance and support for the child of the marriage were ordered, but claims for the two other children were dismissed.
A.W.F v K.S.R (052216/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 503 (16 May 2025)
Rule 43 interim relief in a pending divorce: the court ordered maintenance, residence, contact arrangements, and a curator ad litem for two minor children.
L.K v B.R.K (2024-116399) [2025] ZAGPPHC 360 (4 April 2025)
Rule 43 interim maintenance and costs relief was refused. The court found the maintenance claims unreasonable on the evidence and dismissed the application.
J.P.N v N.A.N (51791/2020) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1337 (17 December 2024)
The court found that the applicant and children are in need of interim maintenance pending the finalisation of divorce proceedings. The applicant's financial position has deteriorated due to unemployment, mental health issues, and cancer diagnosis, and she no longer receives income from joint business interests. The respondent has substantial means and historically paid for the family's expenses, but has ceased doing so since separation. The applicant's expenses are reasonable and consistent with the marital standard of living. The respondent's arguments regarding the applicant's earning capa…
Source excerpt
N.E.M v H.C.C and Another (1790/2023) [2024] ZALMPTHC 30 (2 September 2024)
The High Court held the first respondent in contempt for failing to comply with a Rule 43 maintenance order and issued coercive enforcement relief.
R.R v E.R (25548/2019) [2024] ZAGPJHC 816 (8 August 2024)
The court found that although the residence of the children is now shared, the Respondent continues to bear the majority of direct expenses for the children, including school fees, medical aid, and additional costs. The Applicant's proposal to pay service providers directly was rejected due to his history of non-compliance and combative behaviour, which could jeopardize the children's interests. The quantum of R20,000 per month was found to be reasonable and reflective of 50% of the children's direct expenses, with provision for annual increases in line with the Consumer Price Index. The Resp…
Source excerpt
Explore more
