South Africa Case Law

Haupt; Ex Parte Esterhuizen (21458/2021 ; 10857/2023), Ex parte

Haupt; Ex Parte Esterhuizen (21458/2021 ; 10857/2023), Ex parte [2025] ZAWCHC 330 (5 August 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

21458/2021 ; 10857/2023

Judge

Moosa

The court found, on the evidence of medical experts and curators ad litem, that both [L] and [R] suffer from severe disabilities rendering them incapable of managing their own affairs, thus meeting the jurisdictional requirements of Uniform Rule 57(13). The precedent in Ex parte Oppel was rejected as inconsistent with binding appellate authority and constitutional imperatives, particularly the best interests of the child standard. The court held that the appointment of a curator bonis is justified where substantial awards are at stake, the guardians lack financial expertise, and there is risk…

Source excerpt

• Curator Bonis Appointment
• Children With Disabilities
• Road Accident Fund Award
• Best Interests Of Child
• Uniform Rule 57
• Children S Act

J.HG v G.W.H and Another (7147/2024)

J.HG v G.W.H and Another (7147/2024) [2025] ZAFSHC 133 (7 May 2025)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

7147/2024

Judge

Van Zyl

Costs judgment after dismissal of an urgent application for temporary safe care of a minor child over the festive period.

• Variation Of Custody Order
• Best Interests Of Child
• Children S Act
• Costs In Family Law
• Urgent Interim Relief
• Family-law

E.V.D.M v S.R.V.D.M (099818/2023)

E.V.D.M v S.R.V.D.M (099818/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 378 (11 April 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

099818/2023

Judge

Domingo

The court found that the clause in the contact agreement delegating binding decision-making power to the parenting coordinator was an unlawful and invalid delegation of judicial authority. Only courts may make binding rulings on parental rights and responsibilities; parenting coordinators may facilitate and mediate but cannot amend or determine such rights. The court ordered structured, phased-in contact arrangements for the respondent and the minor children, with the parenting coordinator appointed to implement and monitor these arrangements, but without authority to make binding changes to…

Source excerpt

• Parenting Coordination
• Parental Responsibilities And Rights
• Maintenance Pendente Lite
• Contribution To Legal Costs
• Children S Act
• Interim Contact Arrangements

A.M.D v C.D.D and Others (2024/142336)

A.M.D v C.D.D and Others (2024/142336) [2025] ZAGPJHC 208 (5 March 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2024/142336

Judge

Adams

Leave to appeal against a costs order was refused because the applicant showed no reasonable prospects of success and the costs discretion was properly exercised.

• Costs Orders
• Leave To Appeal
• Children S Act
• Judicial Discretion
• Curatrix Ad Litem
• Review Of Magistrates Court

H.S.E v H.A.E (3350/2022)

H.S.E v H.A.E (3350/2022) [2025] ZAFSHC 45 (26 February 2025)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

3350/2022

Judge

Daniso

The applicant failed to discharge the onus of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that a change in primary residence and care would be in the best interests of the minor children. The psychologist's report relied upon was outdated and did not address the children's views, which are statutorily required. The family advocate's report, which included the children's perspectives and a thorough assessment, found no evidence of parental alienation and recommended that residence remain with the respondent. The applicant's allegations were not supported by credible evidence, and his persistent li…

Source excerpt

• Variation Of Custody Order
• Best Interests Of Child
• Parental Alienation
• Maintenance Enforcement
• Children S Act
• Costs Punitive Scale

JVDM and Others (104620/2024), Ex parte

JVDM and Others (104620/2024), Ex parte [2025] ZAGPPHC 187; 2025 (4) SA 616 (GP) (24 February 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

104620/2024

Judge

Neukircher

The court found that the surrogate motherhood agreement complied with all requirements of Chapter 19 of the Children’s Act. Medical evidence from two specialists confirmed that the third applicant, CB, is healthy and capable of safely gestating another pregnancy and undergoing a sixth caesarean section. There is no statutory or regulatory limitation on the number of surrogacies or caesarean sections, and the surrogacy is altruistic, not commercial. The absence of legislative restriction is not for the court to remedy, as to do so would violate the separation of powers. Comparative research co…

Source excerpt

• Surrogacy Agreement
• Children S Act
• Parental Rights
• Altruistic Surrogacy
• Medical Screening
• Separation Of Powers

A.E.S obo L.T.S v Member of the Executive Council for Health and Social Development of the Free State (1094/2024)

A.E.S obo L.T.S v Member of the Executive Council for Health and Social Development of the Free State (1094/2024) [2025] ZAFSHC 34 (13 February 2025)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

1094/2024

Judge

J J F Hefer

The court held that the plaintiff lacked locus standi to claim damages in a representative capacity for her daughter, as the daughter was a major at the time the action was instituted, in terms of the Children’s Act 38 of 2005, which reduced the age of majority to 18. No evidence could be led to prove the contrary, and the particulars of claim did not disclose a cause of action in this respect. The exception on this ground was upheld. Regarding the second ground, the court found that the particulars of claim, although lacking some detail, were not vague and embarrassing to the extent that the…

Source excerpt

• Locus Standi
• Exception Procedure
• Vague And Embarrassing Pleading
• Children S Act
• Damages Claim

M.D v L.N and Another (Reasons) (3051/2020)

M.D v L.N and Another (Reasons) (3051/2020) [2025] ZAECQBHC 4 (3 February 2025)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Gqeberha

Case number

3051/2020

Judge

T Rossi

High Court child-care matter on parental alienation: rule nisi confirmed, primary residence moved to the applicant, with therapeutic and managed contact orders.

• Parental Alienation
• Best Interests Of Child
• Care And Contact
• Children S Act
• Parenting Coordinator
• Therapeutic Intervention

R.B v E.B (3893/2022)

R.B v E.B (3893/2022) [2025] ZALMPPHC 10 (27 January 2025)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

3893/2022

Judge

M Z Makoti

The court changed a shared care arrangement for a young child, placing primary residence with the respondent pending a psychologist’s report, with reasonable contact for the applicant.

• Primary Residence
• Best Interests Of Child
• Variation Of Care Order
• Children S Act
• Parental Responsibilities
• Family Advocate Report

C.H v L.H (Reasons) (32/2025)

C.H v L.H (Reasons) (32/2025) [2025] ZAWCHC 11 (23 January 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

32/2025

Judge

Pangarker

Urgent application to relocate a child and change schools struck off the roll for self-created urgency and lack of proper consultation with the father.

• Children S Act
• Parenting Plan
• Urgent Application
• Maintenance Variation
• Best Interests Of Child
• Child-relocation