Esheria South Africa Case Law
Sign in
South Africa Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

South Africa Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
2 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter South Africa case law

Results update automatically as you type.

South Africa decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Family And Children [2023] ZAWCHC 112

Fourie and Another v de Wet and Others (13080/2022)

Fourie and Another v de Wet and Others (13080/2022) [2023] ZAWCHC 112 (17 May 2023)

Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Case number
13080/2022
Judge
Pangarker

The court held that the terminology of 'care' as used in the Children’s Act and the High Court order encompasses the concept of 'custody' and 'legal custody' for all legal purposes, including the requirements of the medical aid scheme. Section 1(2) of the Children’s Act expressly provides that 'custody' must be construed to mean 'care', and the order granted the applicants both guardianship and care of the children. The medical aid scheme’s reliance on outdated terminology does not justify the exclusion of the children as dependents, as the legislative framework has replaced 'custody' with 'c…

Source excerpt

  • Guardianship Of Minors
  • Interpretation Of Children Act
  • Medical Aid Dependents
  • Urgent Ex Parte Relief
Read case analysis
Family And Children [2013] ZAGPJHC 64

NM v Presiding Officer of the Children’s Court, District of Krugersdorp and Others (A3075/2011)

NM v Presiding Officer of the Children’s Court, District of Krugersdorp and Others (A3075/2011) [2013] ZAGPJHC 64; 2013 (4) SA 379 (GSJ); [2013] 3 All SA 471 (GSJ) (12 April 2013)

Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
A3075/2011
Judges
Carelse, Mathopo

The court held that section 150(1)(a) of the Children’s Act must be interpreted purposively and in line with the Constitution, ensuring the best interests of the child. The distinction between caregivers who owe a common law duty of support and those who do not is irrational and discriminatory. The inquiry into whether a child is in need of care and protection must focus on the child’s own financial means, not the caregiver’s. If the child is orphaned and without visible means of support, and the caregiver cannot financially provide for the child, the child qualifies for foster care and the c…

Source excerpt

  • Children In Need Of Care
  • Foster Care Grant
  • Interpretation Of Children Act
  • Visible Means Of Support
  • Best Interests Of Child
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

South Africa decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.