South Africa Case Law

W.M.M (Born M) v K.J.M and Others (18882/2022)

W.M.M (Born M) v K.J.M and Others (18882/2022) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1921 (21 November 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

18882/2022

Judge

Manamela

The court found that while the First Respondent failed to comply with the maintenance orders, his non-compliance was not wilful or mala fide. He was ill-advised during divorce proceedings, lacked the financial means to comply, and did not seek variation of the order. The Applicant failed to enforce the orders for over five years and did not provide sufficient evidence to justify execution against the First Respondent’s primary residence under Rule 46A. The requirements for contempt were not met, as the Respondent raised reasonable doubt regarding his ability and intent to comply. Consequently…

Source excerpt

• Spousal Maintenance
• Contempt Of Court
• Writ Of Execution
• Rule 43 Interim Orders
• Rule 46a Executability

G v G (24555/2016)

G v G (24555/2016) [2016] ZAGPJHC 259 (27 September 2016)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

24555/2016

Judge

Spilg

The High Court dismissed a father's leave to appeal against a contempt finding over unpaid maintenance, holding he had an opportunity to address sanction and no prospects of success.

• Maintenance Of Children
• Contempt Of Court
• Rule 43 Interim Orders
• Leave To Appeal
• Contempt-of-court
• Maintenance

R and Another v M (42335/2014)

R and Another v M (42335/2014) [2015] ZAGPJHC 183; [2015] 4 All SA 280 (GJ); 2016 (3) SA 417 (GJ) (13 August 2015)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

42335/2014

Judge

Kathree-Setiloane

The court held that the issues of paternity and parental responsibilities and rights in respect of the minor child, Leago, are central to the pending divorce action between the second applicant and the respondent. These issues are disputed and require a full factual enquiry, including oral evidence and investigation, to determine what is in the best interests of the child. The court found it inappropriate and impermissible to resolve these matters in separate application proceedings, as doing so would fetter the discretion of the divorce court and potentially prejudice the parties. The court…

Source excerpt

• Parental Responsibilities And Rights
• Paternity Dispute
• Best Interests Of Child
• Rule 43 Interim Orders
• Declaratory Relief

Dijkstra v Brinkhuis (16193/2008)

Dijkstra v Brinkhuis (16193/2008) [2011] ZAWCHC 236 (25 May 2011)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

16193/2008

Judge

Weinkove, AJ

The High Court refused leave to appeal in a divorce and maintenance dispute, corrected an omitted divorce decree under Rule 42, and ordered costs against the respondent.

• Divorce
• Maintenance
• Leave To Appeal
• Rule 42 Correction
• Rule 43 Interim Orders
• Leave-to-appeal