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
G.H v B.H.H (041781/2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 777 (13 August 2024)
Rule 43 divorce interim relief granted in part: the mother received primary care, child maintenance, medical aid cover, and a legal-costs contribution.
L.L.N v T.C.N (Born M) (30669/2022) [2022] ZAGPPHC 598 (12 August 2022)
The High Court granted a father permission to relocate two minor children to Algeria and to sign passport documents if the mother refused, finding the move in the children’s best interests.
V K v Reid NO and Others (3256/2018) [2020] ZAGPJHC 137 (17 June 2020)
The High Court reviewed a magistrate’s order altering child custody and contact, restored the applicant’s sole guardianship and primary residence, and left interim contact arrangements in place.
W J v S C (43927/2018) [2019] ZAGPJHC 127; 2019 (6) SA 168 (GJ) (11 April 2019)
The court found that the applicant's decision to relocate to New Zealand was bona fide and reasonable, motivated by the prospect of a better life and stability for herself and the minor child. The respondent did not provide a substantive challenge to the applicant's assertions, nor did he present expert evidence identifying specific concerns regarding the child's welfare. The court held that the best interests of the child are paramount and that the applicant had made sufficient undertakings to maintain the child's relationship with the respondent. The urgency of the matter and the practical…
Source excerpt
Goliath and Another v Hutchinson and Another (280/2011) [2011] ZAECGHC 12 (3 March 2011)
The court found that the minor child had experienced proven stability and well-being in the care of the second applicant, his paternal grandmother, for four years. The abrupt removal of the child to the custody of the second respondent, with whom he had little established relationship, was motivated by the first respondent's convenience rather than the child's best interests. The evidence did not demonstrate that the new arrangement served the child's welfare, and there was uncertainty regarding the quality of care and future arrangements. Given the child's tender age and the disruption to hi…
Source excerpt
Explore more
