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
S.V.D.B. v H.E.V.D.B (2024/067811) [2025] ZAGPJHC 695 (16 July 2025)
The High Court granted leave to appeal only on the relocation order, while refusing leave on contact and contribution toward costs in a child-relocation dispute.
J.V.W v P.C.V.W (EL514/2025) [2025] ZAECELLC 9 (27 May 2025)
Rule 43 application for a further contribution toward divorce litigation costs dismissed for lack of full financial disclosure and proof of changed circumstances.
N.D v P.D.P.D and Another (2022-020777) [2025] ZAGPPHC 326 (28 March 2025)
An urgent Rule 43 application about minor children was struck off because the applicant failed to show urgency and gave no persuasive reason for a four-week delay.
R.L.M.K v M.G.M (20421/2016) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1243 (29 November 2024)
The court found that the application was not urgent, as the applicant's financial difficulties were not of a sudden or immediate nature and could be addressed through ordinary rule 43 proceedings within a reasonable time. On the merits, the relief sought was unsustainable: the claim for a contribution towards legal costs related to past expenses, which are excluded by the divorce order requiring each party to pay their own costs; direct access to the respondent's bank accounts lacked any legal basis; and the claim for university fees was unsupported, as there was no order obliging the respond…
Source excerpt
S.A v N.B.A (1238/2020) [2024] ZAECQBHC 41 (26 November 2024)
The court found that the respondent's non-compliance with the maintenance order was not willful or mala fide. The respondent demonstrated efforts to purge contempt by selling vehicles, attempting to access pension funds, and putting properties on the market, with documentary proof provided. The applicant did not dispute these efforts. The respondent discharged the evidential burden to show that his default was not deliberate or malicious. The application for contempt was dismissed, but the respondent was ordered to pay R30,000 monthly until the arrears of R294,500 are settled. The issue of co…
Source excerpt
D.J.V.R v J.F.J.V.R (830/2022) [2024] ZAFSHC 294 (20 September 2024)
The court found that while the respondent was obliged to comply with the court orders and should have applied for a variation if unable to do so, he provided a detailed explanation for his late payments and actions regarding the domestic worker. The respondent's affidavit established a reasonable doubt that his non-compliance was not wilful or mala fide. Applying the Plascon-Evans rule, the matter was decided on the respondent's version, which was not fictitious or clearly untenable. The respondent discharged the evidentiary burden, and contempt was not established beyond reasonable doubt.
Source excerpt
S.M v N.M (D6667/2024) [2024] ZAKZDHC 54 (28 August 2024)
The court found that the applicant's Rule 43 application was excessively lengthy, containing irrelevant allegations and annexures, and failed to comply with the requirements of brevity and relevance prescribed by Uniform Rule 43. The application constituted an abuse of process, and the court exercised its discretion to strike the matter off the roll. Recognizing that the applicant may not have been aware of the procedural requirements, the court determined that her legal advisors were responsible for the prolixity and abuse. Accordingly, the court ordered that the applicant's attorney may not…
Source excerpt
L.S v J.S (23967/2012) [2024] ZAGPJHC 653 (2 August 2024)
The High Court varied a long-running Rule 43 maintenance order downward, finding changed financial circumstances for both spouses and refusing further legal-costs support.
S.S v M.C (2023/057206) [2024] ZAGPPHC 291 (26 March 2024)
Rule 43 interim maintenance was granted at R20,000 per month for the applicant and three minor children, while arrears and a costs contribution were refused.
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
Explore more
