South Africa Case Law

Potgieter and Another v Welgemoed and Others (A275/2020)

Potgieter and Another v Welgemoed and Others (A275/2020) [2022] ZAGPPHC 532 (20 July 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A275/2020

Judges

DS Molefe, AC Basson, N Janse Van Nieuwenhuizen

The court held that the interim order appointing a curator ad litem was not final in effect, as it did not definitively resolve the parties' rights or dispose of the main relief sought. The order was intended to facilitate an investigation into the best interests of the minor children, with the curator ad litem reporting back to the court before any final determination. The High Court retains inherent jurisdiction as upper guardian of minor children, and the powers granted to the curator ad litem do not usurp the court's authority. The interests of justice did not warrant entertaining the app…

Source excerpt

• Curator Ad Litem Appointment
• Parental Responsibility And Rights
• Interim Orders
• Appealability
• Best Interests Of Child

TS v TS (28917/2016)

TS v TS (28917/2016) [2017] ZAGPJHC 244; 2018 (3) SA 572 (GJ) (7 August 2017)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

28917/2016

Judge

Spilg

High Court judgment on Rule 43 in a divorce matter, requiring detailed financial disclosure from both parties before deciding maintenance, costs, and housing contributions.

• Rule 43 Interim Relief
• Maintenance Pendente Lite
• Parental Responsibility And Rights
• Financial Disclosure
• Children Best Interests
• Contribution Towards Costs

D.K v P.J.M (57613/2014)

D.K v P.J.M (57613/2014) [2015] ZAGPPHC 335 (24 April 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

57613/2014

Judge

C Pretorius

High Court parenting dispute: residency of a minor was awarded to the father, while both parents kept full responsibilities and the mother received specified contact rights.

• Parental Responsibility And Rights
• Primary Care And Residence
• Contact Rights
• Best Interests Of Child
• Children S Act
• Family Advocate Report

E v E (68802/12)

E v E (68802/12) [2013] ZAGPPHC 525 (1 March 2013)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

68802/12

Judge

Makhubele AJ

The court found the applicant had established a prima facie claim for rehabilitative maintenance based on her financial disadvantage resulting from the marriage and her role in building the respondent's business. The applicant's projected expenses were excessive, but the respondent's own financial disclosures lacked supporting evidence. The court discounted certain expenses and accepted that the respondent should continue paying for specific items. The respondent's surplus income was sufficient to meet the applicant's reasonable needs. The court awarded maintenance at a reduced quantum, order…

Source excerpt

• Maintenance Pending Divorce
• Rehabilitative Maintenance
• Parental Responsibility And Rights
• Rule 43 Procedure
• Contribution To Legal Costs