South Africa Case Law

B.M.S v J.N.W (2024/110526)

B.M.S v J.N.W (2024/110526) [2025] ZAGPJHC 112 (10 February 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2024/110526

Judge

M Abro

The court found that the applicant's decision to relocate with the minor children to Cape Town was reasonable, bona fide, and in their best interests. The evidence demonstrated that the ongoing conflict between the parties had caused significant psychological harm to the children, and that stability with the applicant in Cape Town, supported by family and secure employment, was essential. The respondent's opposition was primarily motivated by a desire to maintain control rather than genuine concern for the children's welfare. Expert reports from Professor Pretorius and directives from the joi…

Source excerpt

• Relocation Of Minor Children
• Parental Responsibilities And Rights
• Best Interests Of Child
• Parenting Coordination
• Maintenance Orders

J.G.K v E.C.K (2025-006745)

J.G.K v E.C.K (2025-006745) [2025] ZAGPPHC 79 (3 February 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2025-006745

Judge

Swanepoel

Urgent application to suspend a Magistrate’s Court maintenance-related order was struck from the roll for lack of urgency, with costs against the applicant.

• Maintenance Orders
• Urgent Applications
• Contempt Of Court
• Variation Of Orders
• Urgent-applications
• Maintenance-orders

V.L v O.C.V (11677/2006 ; 18206/2007)

V.L v O.C.V (11677/2006 ; 18206/2007) [2024] ZAWCHC 338; 2025 (1) SACR 498 (WCC) (29 October 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

11677/2006 ; 18206/2007

Judge

Wille, J

The High Court dismissed a contempt application seeking the respondent’s incarceration for non-payment under a divorce settlement, finding the debt was civil and not enforceable by imprisonment.

• Contempt Of Court
• Abolition Of Civil Imprisonment Act
• Maintenance Orders
• Jurisdiction
• Asset Redistribution
• Contempt-of-court

M.E.M v L.N.M (A2023/070387)

M.E.M v L.N.M (A2023/070387) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1069 (22 October 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A2023/070387

Judges

S. Potterill, B. Mostert

The High Court refused condonation for a late appeal against a maintenance order, held the appeal had lapsed, and ordered the appellant to pay costs.

• Maintenance Orders
• Condonation Of Late Appeal
• Substitution Of Maintenance
• Child Support
• Maintenance-orders
• Condonation

D.J.V.R v J.F.J.V.R (830/2022)

D.J.V.R v J.F.J.V.R (830/2022) [2024] ZAFSHC 294 (20 September 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

830/2022

Judge

Ramdeyal AJ

The court found that while the respondent was obliged to comply with the court orders and should have applied for a variation if unable to do so, he provided a detailed explanation for his late payments and actions regarding the domestic worker. The respondent's affidavit established a reasonable doubt that his non-compliance was not wilful or mala fide. Applying the Plascon-Evans rule, the matter was decided on the respondent's version, which was not fictitious or clearly untenable. The respondent discharged the evidentiary burden, and contempt was not established beyond reasonable doubt.

Source excerpt

• Contempt Of Court
• Maintenance Orders
• Rule 43 Applications
• Wilful Disobedience
• Variation Of Court Order

B.L.D.S v G.N.M.J.S (2022-045185)

B.L.D.S v G.N.M.J.S (2022-045185) [2024] ZAGPJHC 748 (13 August 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2022-045185

Judge

Liebenberg

The High Court dismissed a husband’s bid to rescind a Rule 43 maintenance order and rejected the wife’s contempt counterapplication for non-payment.

• Rule 43 Proceedings
• Rescission Of Judgment
• Contempt Of Court
• Maintenance Orders
• Variation Of Orders
• Rule-43-proceedings

L.M.G V J.M.G (124145/2023)

L.M.G V J.M.G (124145/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 672 (9 July 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

124145/2023

Judge

Swanepoel

The High Court found the respondent in contempt of a Rule 43 interim maintenance order, holding that his non-compliance was willful and mala fide.

• Rule 43 Interim Maintenance
• Contempt Of Court
• Willful Disobedience
• Maintenance Orders
• Contempt-of-court
• Rule-43

A.V and Another v D.C and Others (40522/19)

A.V and Another v D.C and Others (40522/19) [2024] ZAGPJHC 626; [2024] 3 All SA 724 (GJ) (26 June 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

40522/19

Judge

Vally

The court found that DC was not merely a sperm donor, as the agreement and conduct of the parties went beyond a typical donor arrangement. However, no co-parenting agreement as envisaged by law was concluded, as the agreement lacked essential elements such as guardianship and comprehensive decision-making. AV and NZ, as permanent life partners, invoked the benefit of the Constitutional Court’s reading-in remedy, and are recognised as Z’s legal parents with full parental rights and responsibilities. DC, while not a parent under the Act, is entitled to contact and care rights under section 23 d…

Source excerpt

• Artificial Fertilisation
• Parental Rights And Responsibilities
• Best Interests Of The Child
• Life Partnerships
• Constitutional Invalidity
• Maintenance Orders

R.K v I.K (17760/2019)

R.K v I.K (17760/2019) [2024] ZAWCHC 306 (20 June 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

17760/2019

Judge

Andrews

The court adjourned a writ-of-commitment application in a maintenance contempt matter, seeking further reports on insolvency and correctional supervision.

• Maintenance Orders
• Civil Contempt
• Correctional Supervision
• Sequestration
• Rule 43 Proceedings
• Civil-contempt

Nteshe v Christiaan (660/2021)

Nteshe v Christiaan (660/2021) [2024] ZAFSHC 144 (6 May 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

660/2021

Judge

Boonzaaier AJ

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable and satisfactory explanation for his default and did not demonstrate a bona fide defence with prospects of success. The applicant's partial payments and claims of negotiation did not constitute compliance with the maintenance order, and he failed to provide proof of inability to pay. The contempt order was not erroneously sought or granted, as the applicant's absence was elective and not precluded. The applicant, as a Magistrate and officer of the court, was expected to understand and comply with court orders. The court conclud…

Source excerpt

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Contempt Of Court
• Maintenance Orders
• Rule 42 Uniform Rules
• Costs Orders