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
D.R.R v S.D.R and Another (8947/2022P) [2025] ZAKZPHC 54 (28 May 2025)
Leave to appeal was refused in a child-care dispute because the applicant showed no reasonable prospect of success and no compelling reason to appeal.
N.C.L v P.A.L (87/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 315 (15 October 2024)
An eleventh-hour postponement of a divorce trial was granted, but the defendant was ordered to pay the application, opposition, and wasted costs.
C.J.H (Born A) v C.F.H (1378/2022) [2023] ZAECQBHC 41 (20 July 2023)
Rule 43 interim relief in a divorce matter. The court ordered primary residence, maintenance, school fee contributions, and R35,000 toward incurred legal costs.
P.D.D (Born M) v P.A.D (414744/16) [2022] ZAGPPHC 757 (13 October 2022)
The High Court granted a divorce, divided the joint estate, awarded primary care of the children to the applicant, ordered interim child maintenance, and made a costs order against the respondent.
Q.P.Z (born T) v M.D.Z (EL1154/2022) [2022] ZAECELLC 22 (30 August 2022)
Rule 43 interim relief granted in a divorce matter, including primary care, maintenance for the children and applicant, school expenses, and a legal-cost contribution.
H S v J S (1025/2016) [2019] ZAFSHC 2 (7 March 2019)
A mother sought to vary a divorce settlement to make her the primary caregiver of two children. The High Court dismissed the application and left the shared arrangement in place.
M.B v N.B (CA&R60/2017) [2018] ZAECGHC 74 (28 August 2018)
The magistrate misdirected herself by relying on an unsupported finding regarding the appellant's helper and failing to consider the relevant factors set out in section 7 of the Children's Act to determine the best interests of the children. Despite this error, a holistic assessment of the evidence demonstrates that the children have resided with the respondent in a stable and caring environment for over three years, and another change in their primary residence would likely be detrimental. Both parents are capable and competent, but the continuity and stability provided by the respondent, su…
Source excerpt
A.C v R.C (4374/14) [2015] ZAECPEHC 1 (13 January 2015)
The High Court dismissed an urgent bid to change primary care of two children, finding the matter was already before the Regional Court and no exceptional urgency was shown.
Explore more
