South Africa Case Law

Ad Hoc Central Authority for the Republic of South Africa and Another v DM (18862/2023)

Ad Hoc Central Authority for the Republic of South Africa and Another v DM (18862/2023) [2024] ZAWCHC 170 (19 June 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

18862/2023

Judge

J Cloete

The applicants failed to discharge the onus of proving that the children were habitually resident in Germany immediately before their retention in South Africa. The evidence did not support a mutual intention to relocate permanently to Germany, and the circumstances indicated the move was temporary and prompted by the pandemic. The father's actions, such as hiding the children's passports, further undermined the claim of habitual residence. Consequently, the Hague Convention does not apply. Even if habitual residence had been established, the mother did not meet the high threshold required fo…

Source excerpt

• Child Abduction
• Habitual Residence
• Hague Convention
• Children's Best Interests
• Interim Contact
• Jurisdictional Facts

C.F.B v D.A.B (21601/2020)

C.F.B v D.A.B (21601/2020) [2023] ZAGPPHC 598 (21 July 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

21601/2020

Judge

E van der Schyff

Interim Rule 43 contact dispute involving a relocating parent. The High Court kept the status quo, with adjustments for travel and holidays, and confirmed each side bears its own costs.

• Interim Contact
• Parental Relocation
• Best Interests Of Child
• Rule 43 Procedure
• Interim-child-contact
• Parental-relocation

ND v PT (25792/2020)

ND v PT (25792/2020) [2022] ZAGPJHC 13 (18 January 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

25792/2020

Judge

A A Crutchfield

The court found that the respondent's conduct in withholding contact between the applicant and the minor child, withdrawing divorce proceedings to frustrate enforcement, and failing to negotiate alternative arrangements for video calls or supervised contact, constituted wilful and mala fide non-compliance with the court order. The respondent failed to discharge the evidential burden to provide an exculpatory explanation for her conduct, and her financial claims were unsupported by reliable documentary evidence. The best interests of the child required enforcement of the order, and the respond…

Source excerpt

• Contempt Of Court
• Children S Act
• Best Interests Of Child
• Rule 43 Proceedings
• Interim Contact
• Punitive Costs

RV v YV (20/39012)

RV v YV (20/39012) [2020] ZAGPJHC 406 (10 December 2020)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

20/39012

Judge

KS McLean

The High Court granted interim supervised contact between a father and his three-year-old daughter pending divorce proceedings and postponed a counter-application for further investigation.

• Interim Contact
• Rule 43 Application
• Best Interests Of Child
• Supervised Contact
• Forensic Investigation
• Family-law

S.E.I v R.A.A.M (31604/2020)

S.E.I v R.A.A.M (31604/2020) [2020] ZAGPPHC 439 (11 August 2020)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

31604/2020

Judge

D S Fourie

The High Court struck an urgent child-contact application from the roll after the parties largely agreed interim access arrangements pending further evaluation.

• Interim Contact
• Best Interests Of Child
• Parental Access
• Psychiatric Evaluation
• Family-law
• Child-contact