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
S v S (2022/49275) [2022] ZAGPJHC 148 (14 March 2022)
The court granted interim child-care relief pending divorce, keeping the children with the respondent and setting structured contact for the applicant.
Ockhuys v S (CA & R 6/2021) [2021] ZANCHC 48 (3 September 2021)
High Court bail appeal dismissed in a murder case where the appellant failed to show that the interests of justice permitted release on bail.
JE v NM (38571/2013) [2014] ZAGPJHC 175 (20 June 2014)
The court held that although the High Court has inherent jurisdiction as upper guardian of minors, the best interests of the child dictate that disputes over parental rights and responsibilities should be decided by the children’s court, which made the initial order and is seized with pending proceedings regarding contact and residency. The applicant failed to establish that the children’s court refused to refer the matter to the Family Advocate or that the best interests of the child required High Court intervention. The applicant’s case for varying contact arrangements was vague and unsubst…
Source excerpt
Mabika and Others v Mabika and Another (2011/10308) [2011] ZAGPJHC 109 (8 September 2011)
The court found that the deceased, Monica Tembisile Mabika, intended the documents executed at First National Bank in September 2010 to be her final will, as evidenced by her handwriting, explicit instructions, and the surrounding circumstances of her estrangement from the first respondent. The deceased's actions, including appointing the first applicant as guardian and executrix, and her efforts to exclude the first respondent from her estate, demonstrated clear testamentary intention. Section 2(3) of the Wills Act empowers the court to direct the Master to accept such documents as a will, e…
Source excerpt
Patrick v Pillay (6736/2007) [2009] ZAKZDHC 24 (16 April 2009)
The applicant failed to establish that he was unlawfully deprived of possession of the premises. The alleged Domestic Violence Interdict did not exist, and there was no evidence that the respondent committed any act of spoliation. The applicant's case was not made out in the founding affidavit, and his conduct amounted to an abuse of court process. Consequently, the rule nisi was discharged, and the application was dismissed with punitive costs awarded against the applicant.
Source excerpt
Explore more
