South Africa Case Law

V.R.N v B.L.S (2024/058240)

V.R.N v B.L.S (2024/058240) [2025] ZAGPJHC 701 (18 July 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2024/058240

Judge

C Von Ludwig

The applicant failed to prove the existence of a valid and enforceable gamete donor agreement. The evidence showed that he was actively involved in the children’s lives and contributed financially, which is inconsistent with the role of a mere gamete donor. The court found that granting the declaratory order would unjustly deprive the children of paternal support and contravene the paramountcy of their best interests as required by the Children’s Act. The applicant’s reliance on section 40(3) was misplaced, as the provision is intended to protect donors in genuine donor scenarios, not to allo…

Source excerpt

• Parental Responsibilities
• Gamete Donor Agreement
• Children Best Interests
• Declaratory Relief
• Maintenance Obligations

T.M.N v Y.N (2024/110088)

T.M.N v Y.N (2024/110088) [2025] ZAGPJHC 260 (13 March 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2024/110088

Judge

F Marcandonatos

The High Court changed the children’s primary residence to the applicant, citing the respondent’s alcohol use, conflictual co-parenting, and parental alienation concerns.

• Primary Residence
• Parental Alienation
• Alcohol Abuse
• Co Parenting
• Children Best Interests
• Expert Evidence

K.N.M obo P.E.M v Road Accident Fund (2023/034357)

K.N.M obo P.E.M v Road Accident Fund (2023/034357) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1362 (4 December 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2023/034357

Judge

Basson

The court found that the applicant's claim was validly lodged with the Road Accident Fund, as all required documents were submitted and there was at least substantial compliance with the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996. The Management Directive and Board Notices issued by the RAF were held to be unlawful, as they imposed requirements beyond those stipulated in the Act and Regulations and did not have the force of law. The court emphasized that the best interests of the minor child are paramount and must be considered in the adjudication of the claim. The order was granted by default due to…

Source excerpt

• Road Accident Fund Act
• Substantial Compliance
• Lodgement Of Claim
• Management Directive
• Children Best Interests

Rossouw v MEC Police, Roads and Transport for the Province of the Free State (1836/2019)

Rossouw v MEC Police, Roads and Transport for the Province of the Free State (1836/2019) [2020] ZAFSHC 179 (5 November 2020)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

1836/2019

Judge

Daniso

The High Court refused condonation for a late notice under the organs of state act, finding the delay unexplained, the claim weak, and prejudice not disproved.

• Institution Of Legal Proceedings Against Organs Of State Act
• Condonation Of Late Notice
• Loss Of Support
• Negligence
• Prescription
• Children Best Interests

M.J v Master of the High Court and Others (15699/2017)

M.J v Master of the High Court and Others (15699/2017) [2019] ZAWCHC 8 (18 February 2019)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

15699/2017

Judges

Bozalek, Sievers

The court found that the Master's decision to appoint Ms Thobejane as executor was lawful, rational, and procedurally fair. The applicant had previously nominated Mr Pinini, who was removed by court order due to misconduct and collusion, and all appeals against his removal had been exhausted. The applicant was not the de facto guardian of the minor child, who was in the care of Mr K, and lacked locus standi to nominate an executor. The nomination of Ms Thobejane by the deceased's family, including the minor child's guardian, complied with statutory and regulatory requirements. The Master was…

Source excerpt

• Appointment Of Executor
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Children Best Interests
• Locus Standi
• Procedural Fairness

TS v TS (28917/2016)

TS v TS (28917/2016) [2017] ZAGPJHC 244; 2018 (3) SA 572 (GJ) (7 August 2017)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

28917/2016

Judge

Spilg

High Court judgment on Rule 43 in a divorce matter, requiring detailed financial disclosure from both parties before deciding maintenance, costs, and housing contributions.

• Rule 43 Interim Relief
• Maintenance Pendente Lite
• Parental Responsibility And Rights
• Financial Disclosure
• Children Best Interests
• Contribution Towards Costs

Vermaak v Addisionele Landdros (Kuilsrivier) (12024/07)

Vermaak v Addisionele Landdros (Kuilsrivier) (12024/07) [2008] ZAWCHC 21 (30 April 2008)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

12024/07

Judges

D H van Zyl, J M Hlophe

The court found that the respondent erred by disregarding circumstantial evidence and relying solely on direct expert testimony in determining the date of death. The deceased, a qualified legal advisor, was fully aware of the significance of dying before midnight on 30 September 2005 to secure substantial benefits for his wife and children. The evidence showed that he made calculated preparations, including writing explanatory letters, attempting suicide the day before, and purchasing the rope at 22:16 on 30 September 2005. The circumstantial evidence, including the timeline of events, the de…

Source excerpt

• Judicial Review Of Inquest
• Date Of Death Determination
• Locus Standi
• Children Best Interests
• Circumstantial Evidence
• Pension And Benefits Entitlement