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
T.P.K v Government Employees Pension Fund and Another (4915/2021) [2025] ZAFSHC 196 (25 June 2025)
The High Court granted leave to appeal, finding another court might reach a different conclusion on lis pendens involving divorce proceedings and pension fund entitlements.
C.W.B v C.E.B (7796/2021) [2025] ZAGPJHC 614 (18 June 2025)
The High Court refused to consolidate an undefended divorce action with a separate action over an alleged oral agreement, finding insufficient overlap and undue delay.
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.S.N (8637/2023P), Ex parte [2025] ZAKZPHC 38 (27 March 2025)
The court found that the patient suffers from major depressive disorder with psychomotor retardation, has been hospitalised twelve times for depressive episodes, and attempted suicide five times. Medical evidence from Dr Meyer and Ms Styles demonstrates compromised conative function, rendering the patient incapable of managing her own affairs. The court held that, although the initial application did not strictly comply with Rule 57(3), the requirements were properly dispensed with by the initial judge due to special circumstances. The curatrix ad litem's report and supporting affidavits subs…
Source excerpt
TCE v EE (113234/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 118 (6 February 2025)
The court held that, given the ages and maturity of K and T, their strong desire for independent representation, and the history of feeling excluded and unheard by the curator ad litem, it was appropriate and necessary to confirm the appointment of Adv Strauss as their legal representative. The court distinguished the roles of the curator ad litem (best interests) and the child-directed legal representative (expressed wishes), finding that both roles can coexist depending on the facts. The court found no mala fides in Adv Strauss’s conduct, acknowledged her procedural errors but determined th…
Source excerpt
D.P.E v V.J.E (2024/066643) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1369 (24 December 2024)
The court found that the applicant failed to establish genuine urgency as required by Rule 6(12) of the Uniform Rules. The applicant was legally represented and had initiated divorce proceedings in June 2024 but only notified the pension fund in November 2024. The letter seeking confirmation of the respondent's employment status was sent on 28 November 2024, and the application was issued the next day, without affording the respondent a reasonable opportunity to reply. The court concluded that the urgency was self-created and amounted to an abuse of process. The applicant did not pass the thr…
Source excerpt
D.J.M.F and Another v L.F and Others (749/2020) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1315 (11 December 2024)
The High Court refused to separate divorce issues from maintenance, accrual and trust claims, holding that the applicant had not shown proper grounds under Rule 33(4).
D.K.F v C.F (Born D.P) (2023-133256) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1154 (8 November 2024)
The court found that the settlement agreement and supporting affidavits failed to address the best interests of both the minor child born of the marriage and the foster child. No evidence was presented as to why shared primary residency and the lack of general maintenance were in the children's best interests, and the views of the Family Advocate and designated social worker were absent. The court held that, as upper guardian, it must ensure that adequate provision is made for all minor children, including foster children, before granting a divorce order. The matter was removed from the roll…
Source excerpt
G.J.W v L.W (2023-114308) [2024] ZAGPPHC 823 (8 August 2024)
The court found that the applicant failed to establish a case for confirmation of the interim anti-dissipation order. The respondent's intentions regarding the net proceeds of the Mooikloof property were consistent and focused on the children's education, with the balance available for accrual claims. There was no evidence of an intention to dissipate assets to defeat the applicant's claim. The respondent has sufficient assets to meet any accrual claim, and the applicant's fear of dissipation was unfounded. The interim order was overbroad, as the applicant's accrual claim at the time was limi…
Source excerpt
S.P.M v L.M (Born M) (56859/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 729 (2 August 2024)
The High Court dismissed an application to rescind a bar-order dismissal and a divorce judgment, finding no good cause, no bona fide defence, and no Rule 42 basis.
Explore more
