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
R.H.K v D.L.F (587/2023 ; 22313/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 310 (19 June 2025)
The High Court found the respondent in contempt for non-compliance with an interim maintenance order, dismissed his Rule 43(6) variation application, and upheld Rule 30/30A objections.
N.S.F v R.H.F (2024/060778) [2025] ZAGPJHC 534 (2 June 2025)
Rule 43 application partly granted. The court ordered interim spousal maintenance, continued listed monthly payments, and a R60,000 contribution to legal costs.
E.V.D.M v S.R.V.D.M (099818/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 378 (11 April 2025)
The court found that the clause in the contact agreement delegating binding decision-making power to the parenting coordinator was an unlawful and invalid delegation of judicial authority. Only courts may make binding rulings on parental rights and responsibilities; parenting coordinators may facilitate and mediate but cannot amend or determine such rights. The court ordered structured, phased-in contact arrangements for the respondent and the minor children, with the parenting coordinator appointed to implement and monitor these arrangements, but without authority to make binding changes to…
Source excerpt
N.P.M v W.R (094519/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 185 (20 February 2025)
The court refused a postponement in a Rule 43 matter and ordered interim maintenance, a vehicle, and a costs contribution after finding the request was not bona fide.
D.J.M v N.M (874/2022) [2025] ZALMPPHC 33 (12 February 2025)
High Court order on child contact, parental rights, and pending maintenance claims. The court adopted a phased-in contact regime and left the existing maintenance order in place.
T.M.C v K.M.P (038855/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 23 (6 January 2025)
The High Court granted Rule 43 interim maintenance for the applicant and minor child, rejected technical objections, and ordered child-related support pending divorce.
H.X v G.X (017721/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 11 (3 January 2025)
A Rule 43 interim maintenance application was dismissed after the court found the applicant had failed to make full and frank financial disclosure.
J.B and Another v J.L.S and Another (22199/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1367 (31 December 2024)
The court found that the first applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of a material change in circumstances since the previous Rule 43 order. The applicant did not annex relevant financial statements or bank records covering the period after the order, and his disclosures were incomplete. The court emphasized the duty of utmost good faith and full disclosure in Rule 43 applications, as established in Du Preez v Du Preez. The material non-disclosures meant the applicant was not before the court with clean hands, justifying refusal of the relief sought. The court exercised its discreti…
Source excerpt
M.O v T.S (079417/2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1346 (13 December 2024)
The court found that no sufficient case was made for exclusive primary residence of the minor children with the applicant, and that the maternal preference rule should not be departed from without compelling reasons. The best interests of the children require stability and continuity in their routine and schooling. The eldest child, nearing majority, should have her wishes respected. The applicant is obliged to maintain the respondent and children at a level consistent with their previous standard of living, subject to his financial capacity. The respondent demonstrated a real and pressing ne…
Source excerpt
J.H.M v L.E.M (116734/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1277 (6 December 2024)
The court dismissed a Rule 43(6) variation bid on maintenance, finding no material change in circumstances, but ordered equal crèche contributions and R80,000 legal costs.
Explore more
