South Africa Case Law

H.C.C and Another v N.E.M and Others (Reasons) (1790/2023)

H.C.C and Another v N.E.M and Others (Reasons) (1790/2023) [2025] ZALMPTHC 12 (25 July 2025)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Thohoyandou

Case number

1790/2023

Judge

Du Plessis

The court found that the applicant did not abuse the court process by requesting a virtual hearing, as the allocation was within the judicial functions of the Judge President. The applicant demonstrated urgency by acting immediately after the vehicle's attachment and provided sufficient explanation that substantial redress would not be available if the vehicle was sold before the pending applications were resolved. The court held that the applicant met the requirements for an interdict: he had a clear right to his property, faced irreparable harm due to the disproportionate value of the vehic…

Source excerpt

• Urgent Interdict
• Maintenance Order
• Rule 43 Application
• Fraudulent Court Order
• Child Paternity Dispute

H.N.C v S.J.C (2024/003610)

H.N.C v S.J.C (2024/003610) [2025] ZAGPJHC 551 (9 June 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2024/003610

Judge

Adams

Rule 43 divorce interim relief partially granted: reduced maintenance and direct expenses were awarded, while most capital claims were refused.

• Spousal Maintenance
• Rule 43 Application
• Contribution To Legal Costs
• Interim Relief
• Rule-43
• Spousal-maintenance

L.K v B.R.K (2024-116399)

L.K v B.R.K (2024-116399) [2025] ZAGPPHC 360 (4 April 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2024-116399

Judge

N G M Mazibuko

Rule 43 interim maintenance and costs relief was refused. The court found the maintenance claims unreasonable on the evidence and dismissed the application.

• Interim Maintenance
• Rule 43 Application
• Spousal Maintenance
• Child Maintenance
• Contribution To Legal Costs
• Rule-43

M.J.M (Born P) v T.S.M (5955/2022)

M.J.M (Born P) v T.S.M (5955/2022) [2025] ZAFSHC 103 (19 March 2025)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

5955/2022

Judge

Mbhele

The High Court found the respondent in contempt for failing to comply with a maintenance order, suspended a committal sentence, and varied interim child-care arrangements.

• Contempt Of Court
• Maintenance Order
• Variation Of Court Order
• Best Interests Of Child
• Rule 43 Application
• Contempt-of-court

C.R.E v M.E (2023/131897)

C.R.E v M.E (2023/131897) [2025] ZAGPJHC 716 (27 February 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/131897

Judge

du Plessis

The applicant failed to demonstrate a patent error or omission attributable to the court in the granting of the Rule 43 interim maintenance order. The forensic audit and financial evidence presented were available during the original proceedings and do not constitute grounds for variation under Rule 42(1)(b). The applicant did not establish a material change in circumstances as required by Rule 43(6), nor did he prove fraud or deliberate suppression of evidence by the respondent. The order reflects the court's true intention based on the evidence before it, and the principle of finality precl…

Source excerpt

• Interim Maintenance
• Variation Of Court Order
• Rule 43 Application
• Rule 42 Patent Error
• Rescission On Fraud

K.G v D.G and Others (B957/2023)

K.G v D.G and Others (B957/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 130 (17 February 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

B957/2023

Judge

Nyathi

The applicant established a prima facie right to the property based on the settlement agreement and the Rule 43 court order, both of which support her claim to the property pending the divorce. The urgency of the application was justified, as the applicant sought compliance before launching proceedings and acted promptly upon learning of the sale agreement. The respondent's financial arguments were found to be unconvincing, given his substantial income and prior findings of contempt. The sale of the property would irreparably harm the applicant by rendering her claim and any future judgment m…

Source excerpt

• Anti Dissipation Interdict
• Settlement Agreement Enforcement
• Rule 43 Application
• Prima Facie Right
• Balance Of Convenience

W.A.S.B v J.M.K (046725/23)

W.A.S.B v J.M.K (046725/23) [2025] ZAGPPHC 44 (17 January 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

046725/23

Judge

Nyathi

Rule 43 interim maintenance and legal-costs application dismissed for non-disclosure and insufficient proof of need.

• Rule 43 Application
• Spousal Maintenance
• Contribution To Legal Costs
• Non Disclosure
• Forfeiture Order
• Matrimonial Property Act

A.B (born D.V, formerly G) v A.B (048896/2024)

A.B (born D.V, formerly G) v A.B (048896/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 51 (17 January 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

048896/2024

Judge

Nyathi

The High Court granted Rule 43 interim relief, ordering spousal maintenance, medical aid and uncovered medical expenses, plus a legal-costs contribution.

• Spousal Maintenance
• Rule 43 Application
• Contribution To Legal Costs
• Medical Expenses
• Pendente Lite Relief
• Spousal-maintenance

M.S.H v J.S.H (Reasons) (618/2019)

M.S.H v J.S.H (Reasons) (618/2019) [2024] ZAWCHC 406 (29 November 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

618/2019

Judge

Lekhuleni

The High Court varied a Rule 43 maintenance order after the father sold the family home, but protected the mother and children from homelessness.

• Maintenance Variation
• Rule 43 Application
• Best Interests Of Child
• Spousal Support
• Arrear Maintenance
• Accommodation Obligation

E.J.L v H.J.C.L (3254/2024)

E.J.L v H.J.C.L (3254/2024) [2024] ZAFSHC 390 (29 November 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

3254/2024

Judge

Mpama AJ

The High Court found the respondent in contempt for non-compliance with a maintenance order, imposed a suspended 30-day jail term, and ordered compliance.

• Maintenance Order
• Contempt Of Court
• Rule 43 Application
• Wilful Disobedience
• Contempt-of-court
• Maintenance-orders