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
C.R.W v L.M.W and Another (12866/2014) [2025] ZAWCHC 279 (2 July 2025)
The High Court refused a stay of execution pending rescission and granted interim vexatious-litigant relief and security for costs against the applicant.
M and Another v D (41339/2018) [2022] ZAGPJHC 705 (19 September 2022)
The High Court found the respondent in contempt for failing to create a trust and transfer property under a 1997 divorce settlement order.
SR v DR and Another (2980/2007) [2022] ZAGPJHC 172 (22 March 2022)
The court found that the applicant established a prima facie right to the proceeds of the sale of the first respondent's property to secure payment of arrear maintenance. The urgency was justified by the imminent transfer of the property and the risk that the first respondent would dissipate the proceeds, leaving the applicant without recourse. The requirements for an anti-dissipation interdict were met, as the applicant demonstrated that the first respondent was likely to dispose of the funds to defeat her claim. The balance of convenience favoured the applicant, who had no other satisfactor…
Source excerpt
Swartz v K and Another (A5036/2021; 2015/8456) [2021] ZAGPJHC 816 (15 December 2021)
The court held that no fee agreement bound the respondents and that the receiver-liquidator was entitled only to reasonable remuneration, while confirming the first respondent’s amount due.
H v H (4897/2007) [2017] ZAGPPHC 1200 (30 October 2017)
The High Court refused to set aside two writs of execution arising from divorce-related agreements and maintenance obligations, and dismissed the application with costs.
M v M (A3076/2016) [2017] ZAGPJHC 279 (28 March 2017)
The Regional Divorce Court, as a creature of statute, does not possess inherent jurisdiction and cannot be vested with such powers by statute. Section 29(1B)(a) and (b) of the Magistrates' Courts Act does not extend the High Court's inherent jurisdiction to the Regional Divorce Court, nor does it confer the power to grant civil contempt orders. The only contempt jurisdiction conferred upon Magistrates' Courts is criminal contempt under section 106 of the Magistrates' Courts Act. Therefore, the order of civil contempt granted by the Regional Divorce Court was invalid and must be set aside. The…
Source excerpt
Labuschagne v Labuschagne and Others (A9.2015) [2016] ZAFSHC 163 (22 September 2016)
The court found that the first respondent did not have sufficient information to formulate a sustainable cause of action for payment of her share of the appellant's pension benefits. The appellant's obstructive conduct and lack of cooperation, coupled with the failure of the second respondent to provide information, constituted exceptional circumstances justifying deviation from normal discovery procedures. The misnomer in the divorce order regarding the pension fund was deemed a patent error and did not affect the first respondent's entitlement, as the appellant was a member of the Transnet…
Source excerpt
Crots v Crots and Others; In re: Crots v Crots (1816/2015) [2015] ZAFSHC 201 (22 October 2015)
The court granted joinder and amendment in a divorce-related dispute over transfer of assets, finding the added parties had a direct and substantial interest.
P.G v F.G (64222/2011) [2014] ZAGPPHC 858 (23 October 2014)
The court found that the parties did not discuss or agree to limit the plaintiff's entitlement under the defendant's Liberty Life Lifestyle Plan (LLLP) to only the shortfall not covered by his medical aid. The language of clause 4 of the settlement agreement, read in context and considering the purpose of the agreement, did not support the defendant's contention of a limitation. The plaintiff's understanding that he would continue to enjoy the same benefits as before was reasonable and consistent with the parties' conduct and the wording of the agreement. The defendant's unexpressed intention…
Source excerpt
Hilne v Hilne (10097/2008) [2008] ZAWCHC 67 (27 November 2008)
The court found that the respondent committed an act of insolvency as contemplated by section 8(b) of the Insolvency Act by failing to satisfy the judgment or indicate sufficient disposable property to the sheriff, as evidenced by the nulla bona return. The respondent's transfer of immovable property was suspicious and not credibly explained. The court held that factual solvency does not preclude sequestration where an act of insolvency has been committed. The applicant demonstrated that sequestration would be to the advantage of creditors, as multiple claims remain unpaid and asset disposal…
Source excerpt
Explore more
