Central Authority of Republic of South Africa and Another v C.M (2023/077002) [2025] ZAGPJHC 99 (10 February 2025)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
2023/077002
Judge
L R Adams
The High Court dismissed a Hague Convention return application, finding the father had consented to removal and that returning the child to Israel posed a grave risk.
K.C v Central Authority for the Republic of South Africa and Another (2024/047309) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1010 (7 October 2024)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
2024/047309
Judge
Mahalelo MB
The court considered the grounds for leave to appeal and the submissions of both parties. It applied the test under section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act, which sets a high threshold for granting leave to appeal. The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated reasonable prospects of success on appeal, as the findings regarding habitual residence and the Article 13(b) defence were properly made in the original judgment. The court concluded that there was no compelling reason for the appeal to be heard and dismissed the application for leave to appeal.
Central Authority for the Republic of South Africa and Another v K.Z-S (47309/2024) [2024] ZAGPJHC 890 (10 September 2024)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
47309/2024
Judge
Mahalelo
The court found that Germany was the habitual residence of the minor children immediately prior to their retention in South Africa, based on their residence, school enrolment, and family connections in Munich. The respondent's retention of the children in South Africa after the agreed holiday period was unlawful and breached the second applicant's rights of custody. The respondent failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that returning the children to Germany would expose them to a grave risk of physical or psychological harm or place them in an intolerable situation as required by…
Central Authority, Republic Of South Africa and Another v Y.R [2023] ZAGPPHC 376; 061066/2022 (29 May 2023)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
061066/2022
Judge
Neukircher
The court found that CJ was habitually resident in Canada immediately prior to his retention in South Africa, based on the family's established life, citizenship, and parental intentions. CR did not acquiesce to CJ's retention, as evidenced by his prompt legal actions in both Canada and South Africa. The Article 12(2) defence was unavailable, as the application was launched within one year of retention. The court considered the Article 13(b) exception and concluded that returning CJ to Canada would expose him to an intolerable situation, primarily due to his medical history and developmental…
Koch N O and Another v Ad hoc Central Authority for the Republic of South Africa and Another (188/2021) [2022] ZASCA 60; [2022] 3 All SA 17 (SCA); 2022 (6) SA 323 (SCA) (26 April 2022)
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
188/2021
Judges
Zondi, Nicholls, Carelse, Weiner, Molefe
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the child’s continued retention in South Africa was wrongful, but the article 13(b) grave-risk defence succeeded and return to the UK was refused.
A.K.N v Central Authority for the Republic of South Africa (AR 571/15) [2016] ZAKZPHC 43 (10 May 2016)
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Case number
AR 571/15
Judges
Lopes, P Bezuidenhout, Gyanda
Hague Convention child-abduction appeal: the court set aside the return order, held the child should remain in South Africa, and ordered contact supervision.
KG v CB and Others (748/11) [2012] ZASCA 17; 2012 (4) SA 136 (SCA); [2012] 2 All SA 366 (SCA) (22 March 2012)
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
748/11
Judges
Mthiyane, Van Heerden, Leach, Boruchowitz, Plasket
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that CB possessed rights of custody under UK law at the time of T’s removal, as he had parental responsibility and was exercising contact rights. KG’s removal of T from the United Kingdom without CB’s consent was wrongful under the Hague Convention. The appellant failed to prove any defence under Article 13: there was no clear evidence of CB’s consent or acquiescence, and the alleged grave risk of harm or intolerable situation was not substantiated. The court found that protective measures, including undertakings for accommodation, maintenance, and supervised…
Pennello v Pennello and Another (238/2003) [2003] ZASCA 147; [2004] 1 All SA 32 (SCA); 2004 (3) BCLR 243 (SCA); 2004 (3) SA 117 (SCA) (1 December 2003)
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
238/2003
Judges
Mpati DP, Farlam JA, Brand JA, Lewis JA, Van Heerden AJA
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent failed to discharge the onus of proving a grave risk of physical or psychological harm to the child under Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention. The evidence presented, including allegations of domestic violence and financial hardship, did not meet the high threshold required for the exception. The Court found that the protective undertakings and conditions offered by the appellant, as incorporated into the order, were sufficient to safeguard the child's interests pending final adjudication of custody in New Jersey. The Full Court erred in…
