South Africa Case Law

S.A.T v G.J.T (2019/22224)

S.A.T v G.J.T (2019/22224) [2025] ZAGPJHC 44 (24 January 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2019/22224

Judge

M V Noko

The court found that the applicant had demonstrated a material change in circumstances since the previous order, as several new interlocutory applications had arisen and the respondent had failed to comply with the prior order for contribution. The applicant remains unemployed and does not have guaranteed access to trust funds, as payment depends on trustee discretion. The respondent is of substantial means and has not shown any deterioration in his financial position. The court accepted that costs for interlocutory applications, except those already covered by the previous order (such as the…

Source excerpt

• Rule 43 Contribution
• Divorce Litigation
• Discretionary Trusts
• Material Change In Circumstances
• Equality Of Arms

C.W.L v N.D.L (24232/2020)

C.W.L v N.D.L (24232/2020) [2025] ZAGPPHC 67 (17 January 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

24232/2020

Judge

Joyini

The court found that the applicant is in genuine need of a contribution towards her legal costs, having incurred substantial debts to fund her litigation. The respondent, with a net estate of R11 million, has the financial means to contribute. The respondent's engagement of Senior Counsel raised the scale of litigation, necessitating intervention to ensure both parties litigate on an equal footing. The principle of 'Equality of Arms' and the duty of support between spouses require the respondent to assist the applicant in securing adequate legal representation. The court considered both curre…

Source excerpt

• Rule 43 Contribution
• Equality Of Arms
• Duty Of Support
• Legal Costs In Divorce
• Constitutional Rights
• Financial Disparity

L.M.T v A.W.T (Reasons) (17399/2020)

L.M.T v A.W.T (Reasons) (17399/2020) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1297 (18 December 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

17399/2020

Judge

P N Manamela

The High Court postponed a divorce trial sine die, citing the applicant’s grief after her mother’s death, and ordered a further Rule 43 legal-cost contribution.

• Postponement Of Trial
• Rule 43 Contribution
• Maintenance
• Costs Award
• Discretion Of Court
• Postponement-of-trial

I R v H R (2013/40348)

I R v H R (2013/40348) [2020] ZAGPJHC 52 (12 February 2020)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2013/40348

Judge

C G Lamont

The court found that the applicant is entitled to a contribution towards her costs to ensure she can adequately present her case, given her financial dependence and the complexity of the issues, including the accrual calculation and excluded assets. The methodology proposed by the applicant's expert, though lengthy and costly, was deemed reasonable in light of the respondent's substantial means and the need for a thorough investigation to ensure a fair outcome. The respondent's objections were rejected as they failed to account for the applicant's right to formulate her case and the necessity…

Source excerpt

• Rule 43 Contribution
• Accrual System
• Maintenance
• Forfeiture Of Benefits
• Expert Evidence