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
L[...] D[...] K[...] v L[...] D[...] K[...] (2022/21021) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1051 (14 October 2024)
Rule 43 interim relief dispute over children’s residence, contact, maintenance, and a parenting coordinator was decided in the mother’s favour.
Jonker and Another v Stoffels (1222/2008) [2010] ZANCHC 46 (25 May 2010)
The High Court found the respondent guilty of contempt for wilfully disobeying custody and access orders about a minor child, and imposed a suspended jail term.
Mokhuane v Mokhuane (464/2005) [2007] ZAFSHC 46 (7 June 2007)
The High Court refused condonation and rescission of a default divorce order, finding the 11-month delay unjustified and no bona fide defence shown.
Potgieter v Potgieter (215/06) [2007] ZASCA 47; [2007] 3 All SA 9 (SCA); 2007 (5) SA 94 (SCA) (30 March 2007)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the trial court and Full Court did not misdirect themselves in their assessment of the expert evidence. The main factual findings were that Mrs Potgieter had always been the children's primary caregiver, there was no evidence of harm to the children in her care, and the children were thriving academically and emotionally. The expert witnesses failed to reconsider their opinions when confronted with the true facts, and their recommendations were based on incorrect assumptions. The court reaffirmed that the best interests of the child are paramount and that…
Source excerpt
Van Wyk v Van Wyk and Another (366/2006) [2006] ZANWHC 24 (30 March 2006)
The High Court restored custody of two minor children to their mother, holding that the Children’s Court process could not effectively override the existing custody order.
Molosiwa v Molosiwa (153/03) [2005] ZANWHC 24 (17 March 2005)
Divorce case awarding custody of three minor children to the plaintiff, with reasonable access for the defendant, child maintenance orders, and equal division of the joint estate.
Rowe v Rowe (105/96) [1997] ZASCA 54; 1997 (4) SA 160 (SCA); [1997] 3 All SA 503 (A); (27 May 1997)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the exception to the main claim could not succeed on the grounds pleaded. The fact that the divorce order was granted by consent in terms of a settlement agreement distinguishes the case from Florence v Florence. Fraud perpetrated on the court, even if extra-judicial, is a valid ground for rescission if it induced the court to grant an order it would not otherwise have made. The alternative claim for enrichment is a discrete cause of action and is not dependent on rescission of the divorce order. The exception rei judicatae does not apply as the facts all…
Source excerpt
Explore more
