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
E.D v H.D (2023/107780) [2024] ZAGPJHC 499 (24 May 2024)
The court dismissed a custody-related urgent application seeking to restore a prior order, finding immediate return of the children would disrupt their welfare.
J.J.A v A.A (2022/021236) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1045 (15 September 2023)
Urgent custody dispute in which the court kept the children primarily with the respondent, ordered a Family Advocate report, and reserved costs.
N.A.N and Another v Minister of Justice and Others (11303/2020) [2023] ZAGPJHC 781 (11 July 2023)
The High Court made an agreed order reviewing and setting aside a Kliptown Magistrate’s Court interim care order, with costs reserved for later determination.
W.D.H v S and Others (2022-026981) [2023] ZAGPJHC 197 (3 March 2023)
The court found that the order of 11 January 2023 was interlocutory in nature, as it was intended to operate pending a report from the Family Advocate and did not constitute a final determination of primary residence, care, or contact. Accordingly, section 18(1) of the Superior Courts Act did not apply, and the execution of the order was not suspended by the applicant's lodging of an application for leave to appeal. The South African Police Service acted lawfully in executing the order. Furthermore, the application was moot as the order had already been executed and the children had been retu…
Source excerpt
H v H (2020/44450) [2022] ZAGPJHC 832 (25 October 2022)
The High Court struck an urgent application from the roll for lack of urgency and ordered each party to bear their own costs for the hearing.
R[....] v R[....] (44169/2019) [2020] ZAGPJHC 379 (2 December 2020)
The High Court dismissed an urgent application for leave to appeal an interim child-related order, finding the order was not appealable and the section 18 application failed.
S v S (2019/13892) [2020] ZAGPJHC 89 (12 February 2020)
The court found that the urgency of the application was justified due to the potential risks to the child arising from the respondent’s lifestyle and substance use, as evidenced by toxicology reports and expert assessments. Both parties were ordered to undergo regular drug testing. The expert reports indicated that the child’s best interests would be served by maintaining primary residence with the applicant, while affording the respondent meaningful and phased-in contact, subject to oversight by a parenting coordinator. The coordinator was granted wide discretion to monitor and adjust arrang…
Source excerpt
AP v FP (6385/2017) [2019] ZAFSHC 138 (29 August 2019)
The court dealt with an interim application for a psychological evaluation in a custody dispute, found Rule 36 inapplicable, and awarded costs to the applicant.
I H v M W (12093/2019) [2019] ZAGPJHC 121 (11 April 2019)
The High Court ordered interim shared custody of a 16-year-old child pending a family advocate report, with both parents to ensure access during care periods.
Pringle v Fourie (748/2019) [2019] ZAECPEHC 21 (4 March 2019)
The court found, on the probabilities, that the respondent had relapsed into drug use, notwithstanding her denial and the negative urine test. The evidence from multiple sources, including admissions, corroborating affidavits, and concerning behaviour, outweighed the respondent's explanations. The risk to the minor child in the respondent's care was deemed self-evident given the history of addiction and recent conduct. The court held that an interim change in primary care to the applicant would provide stability and protect the child's immediate interests, pending a full investigation by the…
Source excerpt
Explore more
