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
M.A.D.T v M.D.T (2023/132917) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1080 (25 September 2024)
The court ordered a forensic psychologist’s investigation in a custody dispute, kept the younger child’s arrangement unchanged, and gave interim residence of the older child to the applicant.
S.I.C v N.M.C (1234/13) [2014] ZAGPPHC 233 (23 April 2014)
The court varied an interim custody order to expand a father's contact with his children, but postponed permission to remove them from South Africa.
M.S v N.W.B (46820/201) [2013] ZAGPPHC 251 (16 August 2013)
The court allowed a mother to temporarily relocate to the UK with her child, granted her sole custody, and preserved the father’s access rights.
Muller v Gorenewald (2624/11) [2011] ZAECGHC 50 (22 September 2011)
The High Court dismissed an application to compel the respondent to undergo psychological examinations before trial in a child custody variation dispute.
D.J.B v M.D.P (previously B) (30377/2008) [2010] ZAGPPHC 612 (27 May 2010)
High Court custody variation case focusing on a child’s best interests, medical treatment concerns, and parental conflict. Primary residence was moved to the applicant.
K v K (17189/08) [2009] ZAGPJHC 13 (6 May 2009)
The court refused a father's bid to relocate a child to Israel, finding the evidence insufficient to show the move was in the child's best interests.
Higgs v Lombard (1004/07) [2008] ZAECHC 149 (22 August 2008)
High Court family matter on varying access to children after divorce. The court refused a further psychological assessment and monthly Pretoria visits, but granted structured contact.
A v A (38371/05) [2008] ZAGPHC 235 (28 July 2008)
A father sought wider contact and overnight access to his young child after divorce. The court allowed reasonable access in principle, but left final sleep-over details to further investigation.
Scott v Hough (3001/2005) [2005] ZAFSHC 17; 2007 (3) SA 425 (O) (18 August 2005)
The court held that the urgent application for interim relief was properly brought under rule 6(4) as an ex parte proceeding, and that the informal notice given to the respondent did not alter the urgent nature of the application or require compliance with the statutory notice periods prescribed by section 27 of the Supreme Court Act. The court found that the urgency of the matter, particularly concerning the welfare of a minor child, justified dispensing with formal service requirements. The respondent's argument that the proceedings were a nullity due to inadequate notice was rejected, as t…
Source excerpt
B v B (12933/02) [2002] ZAGPHC 34 (30 October 2002)
A South African High Court defined a father's access rights, limited Johannesburg access to one weekend a month, ordered him to pay child travel costs, and awarded costs to the respondent.
Explore more
