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
K.P.M v O.L.M and Another (Reasons) (1751/2008) [2025] ZANWHC 103 (17 June 2025)
The High Court dismissed an application to vary a divorce decree under Rule 42, holding there was no common mistake and the proper remedy was appeal.
Mella and Another v Firstrand Mortgage Company (RF) Limited and Another (2022/020649) [2025] ZAGPPHC 375 (8 April 2025)
The High Court dismissed an application to rescind summary judgment and a related interdict, finding no absence, no error, and no basis for common-law rescission.
M.N.P.U.M v S.V.M and Another (2023/114345) [2025] ZAGPJHC 647 (7 April 2025)
The court found that the applicant failed to establish that there was no consensus between the parties regarding the marital regime or that her signature on the special power of attorney was obtained by justus error or misrepresentation. The applicant voluntarily signed the documents authorising the ante nuptial contract, and her conduct and prior knowledge of the respondent's refusal to pool assets indicated she was aware of the implications. The caveat subscriptor rule applied, binding her to the contract. The court held that the ante nuptial contract was validly executed, and the marriage…
Source excerpt
M.S (nee R) v J.S (32041/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1109 (29 October 2024)
The court found that the main issue to be determined in the divorce action is the division of the matrimonial estate, and that separating the issue of the matrimonial property regime would not materially shorten the proceedings. Any evidence led in the interlocutory application would overlap with the main divorce action, and separation would only serve to delay the finalization of the matter. The court balanced the potential prejudice to both parties and concluded that substantial grounds for separation did not exist, nor would it be convenient or serve the interests of justice. Accordingly,…
Source excerpt
N.P v L.P (557/2019) [2024] ZALMPPHC 208 (5 June 2024)
The court held that the parties’ civil marriage replaced the customary marriage, upheld their antenuptial contract, and dismissed rehabilitative maintenance.
D H B v C S B (CCT 293/22) [2024] ZACC 9; 2024 (8) BCLR 1080 (CC); 2024 (5) SA 335 (CC) (22 May 2024)
The Constitutional Court held that, on the pleadings, a prenuptial agreement was an unspecified donation agreement and could co-exist with the antenuptial contract.
M.R v M.T (HCA38/2022) [2024] ZALMPPHC 45 (6 May 2024)
Appeal upheld in a divorce matter; the High Court found the antenuptial contract valid and enforceable and replaced the court a quo’s order.
J.S.N v T.H.N (2229/2017) [2024] ZAECQBHC 86 (26 March 2024)
The High Court held that the parties had entered a valid customary marriage after lobola and traditional ceremonies, and ordered the plaintiff to pay costs.
Z.G v J.G.C.G (77979/2018) [2024] ZAGPPHC 18 (12 January 2024)
The court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate a material change in her financial circumstances since the previous contribution order, as required by Rule 43(6). She did not provide full and frank disclosure of her financial position, particularly regarding income from her businesses and the use of her mother’s bank account. The evidence suggested that the applicant, as a businesswoman with profitable enterprises, could pay her legal fees from her own resources. The court found no justification to order the respondent to contribute further to the applicant’s legal costs, including th…
Source excerpt
Shawn v Shabalala and Another (56880/2021) [2023] ZAGPPHC 2065 (5 September 2023)
The court found that all statutory requirements for a valid customary marriage were met: both parties were over 18, consented to marriage, and the marriage was negotiated and celebrated in accordance with customary law. Lobola negotiations were held and the agreed amount paid. Umembeso was celebrated with both families present, and the applicant moved in with the respondent with family blessings and no objection. The court held that the Act does not require more than one celebration or strict adherence to all traditional rituals, and that substantial compliance suffices. The absence of umabo…
Source excerpt
Explore more
