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
J.V.W v P.C.V.W (EL514/2025) [2025] ZAECELLC 9 (27 May 2025)
Rule 43 application for a further contribution toward divorce litigation costs dismissed for lack of full financial disclosure and proof of changed circumstances.
M.C.M v B.M (D12093/2023) [2024] ZAKZDHC 100 (12 November 2024)
Rule 43 application partly granted: the court awarded monthly maintenance but refused retrospective legal costs already incurred.
D.S v G.S (2250/2023) [2024] ZAMPMHC 54 (19 September 2024)
The court found that the applicant is entirely financially dependent on the respondent and has demonstrated a history of opulent living, which the respondent did not dispute during the marriage. The respondent failed to make full and frank disclosure of his financial affairs and did not provide sufficient evidence to support his claim of inability to pay the amounts sought. The applicant substantiated her claims with financial records and expert reports, and the respondent's conduct in withholding disclosure and reducing maintenance was found to be abusive. The court exercised its discretion…
Source excerpt
Z.D.P v Z.M (44209/19) [2024] ZAGPJHC 896 (16 September 2024)
The court found that the parties' acrimonious relationship and lack of compromise were detrimental to the best interests of the minor children. The removal of H[...] from formal schooling for religious reasons was not in line with her intellectual and social rights, but since the parties agreed to home schooling, the court endorsed this arrangement. The applicant retained the financial means to provide maintenance, and interim maintenance was necessary. The court rejected both parties' claims for contributions towards legal costs under Rule 43, holding that punitive costs are not contemplated…
Source excerpt
M.M v T.M (2023/012335) [2024] ZAGPJHC 835 (20 August 2024)
The High Court ordered pendente lite maintenance for a wife and child, plus legal-costs contributions, after finding both parties lacked full financial candour.
Y.M v T.J.M (26526/2022) [2023] ZAGPPHC 582 (13 July 2023)
The court found the applicant had established a genuine need for interim maintenance, as evidenced by her financial shortfall and reliance on her parents. The respondent's claims of limited means were found improbable given his lifestyle and access to family assets. The applicant's maintenance requirements were deemed reasonable and reflective of the standard of living during the marriage. The respondent was ordered to pay R42,600 per month, cover school and medical expenses, and provide a suitable motor vehicle. Supervised contact was ordered in the best interests of the minor children, pend…
Source excerpt
C.A.D v J.D (4017/2021) [2023] ZAECMKHC 66 (18 May 2023)
The High Court dismissed a Rule 43 request for a contribution to legal costs for poor financial disclosure and granted the respondent’s counter-application for child maintenance pendente lite.
LM v TVM (1492/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 500 (1 August 2022)
The court found that the applicant demonstrated a reasonable need for maintenance pendente lite and that the respondent has the means to pay. The applicant's expenses were scrutinised and found not to be deliberately exaggerated, though some items were adjusted for reasonableness. The respondent is ordered to pay R14,050 per month in maintenance, continue paying insurance and maintenance for the applicant's vehicle, and cover medical expenses not paid by medical aid. The respondent must return the Volvo XC60 in working condition. Regarding legal costs, the court held that only costs related t…
Source excerpt
A.S.L v H.R.L (20482/21) [2021] ZAGPPHC 695 (13 October 2021)
The court found that the respondent earns a higher income than the applicant and, despite his continued responsibility for joint estate expenses, remains obliged to pay maintenance to the applicant pending the divorce. The relief sought by the applicant was deemed reasonable, temporary, and not intended for enrichment. The court balanced the need for maintenance and litigation equality, ordering maintenance and a contribution towards legal costs, while reinforcing the respondent's undertaking to maintain medical aid and insurance payments. The quantum of maintenance was reduced pro rata in li…
Source excerpt
A.F v M.I.F (6664/2019) [2021] ZAWCHC 148 (19 July 2021)
The High Court partly varied a Rule 43 order in divorce proceedings, awarding the wife further interim legal-costs support and dismissing the husband’s counter-claim.
Explore more
