M v M (5710/2010) [2014] ZAFSHC 170 (5 September 2014)
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Case number
5710/2010
Judge
Motloung
The court found that the applicant acted within a reasonable time after learning of the default divorce order and demonstrated a bona fide intention to contest the custody and patrimonial consequences. The delay was not inordinate, considering the applicant's indigence and reliance on Legal Aid, which resulted in multiple attorneys handling her matter. The respondent was aware of the pending litigation before his remarriage and could have set the matter down for hearing. The applicant showed a prima facie triable issue regarding custody and forfeiture, supported by her actions and the Family…
Goliath and Another v Hutchinson and Another (280/2011) [2011] ZAECGHC 12 (3 March 2011)
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Case number
280/2011
Judge
Andrews
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…
Hardwick v Hardwick (AR 355/07) [2008] ZAKZHC 43 (14 February 2008)
Court
High Courts - Kwazulu Natal
Case number
AR 355/07
Judges
Theron, Kruger, Radebe
Appeal against a custody order was dismissed. The court upheld custody of the minor child with the respondent, applying the child’s best interests standard.
Malope v Malope (1669/07) [2008] ZAFSHC 1 (10 January 2008)
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Case number
1669/07
Judge
H.M. Musi
Divorce proceedings in which the court granted divorce, awarded custody to the plaintiff, dismissed child maintenance, and refused forfeiture of benefits.
Gada v Gada (24141/2000) [2006] ZAGPHC 211 (29 May 2006)
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Case number
24141/2000
Judge
M A Badenhorst
The High Court held that the parties had a valid civil marriage, granted a divorce, ordered division of the joint estate, and awarded custody of the minor child to the Defendant by consent.
B v B (05/2030) [2005] ZAGPHC 358; 2005 (5) SA 228 (W) (5 May 2005)
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Case number
05/2030
Judge
N.P. Willis
The High Court does not have jurisdiction to vary a maintenance order made by the maintenance court except by way of appeal or review. The applicant's obligation to pay maintenance to the respondent, as set out in the original settlement agreement and subsequent court orders, remains in force. The maintenance court's variation affected only the quantum, not the duration, of the maintenance. There is no compelling evidence that the maintenance was intended to be rehabilitative or that circumstances justify limiting the duration of the applicant's obligation. The principle of pacta sunt servand…
Divorce dispute over custody, access, child maintenance, and costs. The court awarded custody to the mother, granted the father access, and ordered child support.