South Africa Case Law

BHGH v GH (041781/2024)

BHGH v GH (041781/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 746 (16 July 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

041781/2024

Judge

Minnaar

The court found that the allegations of sexual misconduct against the applicant are serious and that the minor child, being under three years old, is particularly vulnerable. The best interests of the child must take precedence over the applicant’s right to contact. The interim protection order, which prohibits contact pending a forensic investigation, is justified given the gravity of the allegations. The applicant’s failure to anticipate the return date of the interim order and clear his name was noted as concerning. The court held that neither reinstatement of contact nor supervised contac…

Source excerpt

• Best Interests Of Child
• Parental Rights And Responsibilities
• Interim Protection Order
• Rule 43 Variation
• Supervised Contact

M.A.D. v R.G. (2025/047056)

M.A.D. v R.G. (2025/047056) [2025] ZAGPJHC 543 (27 May 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2025/047056

Judge

M Van Nieuwenhuizen

An urgent Rule 43(6) application partly succeeded: the High Court ordered immediate therapy for a minor child and referred the matter to the Family Advocate.

• Rule 43 Variation
• Best Interests Of Child
• Therapeutic Intervention
• Shared Residency
• Family Advocate Investigation
• Rule-43

B.P.M v J.L.M (1909/2024)

B.P.M v J.L.M (1909/2024) [2025] ZALMPPHC 96 (13 May 2025)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

1909/2024

Judge

Mangena

The court found that the Family Advocate's report substantiated the applicant's claim of parental alienation by the respondent, including exclusion from decision-making and negative remarks to the children. The evidence demonstrated that increased contact with the applicant was in the children's best interests to prevent further emotional harm. The applicant's proposal for extended contact was reasonable given the proximity of the parties' residences and the need to foster a healthy parent-child relationship. The court was not persuaded by the applicant's financial hardship claim regarding sp…

Source excerpt

• Parental Alienation
• Contact Rights
• Rule 43 Variation
• Spousal Maintenance
• Best Interests Of Child

T.A.S v I.S (2021/58750)

T.A.S v I.S (2021/58750) [2025] ZAGPJHC 248 (11 March 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2021/58750

Judge

Mahomed

The High Court varied a Rule 43 interim order, increasing spousal maintenance, ordering R180,000 for a vehicle, and raising the legal costs contribution.

• Rule 43 Variation
• Spousal Maintenance
• Contribution To Legal Costs
• Pendente Lite Relief
• Motor Vehicle Provision
• Rule-43-variation

M.O v R.O (15617/2022)

M.O v R.O (15617/2022) [2025] ZAWCHC 37 (27 January 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

15617/2022

Judge

P. S. Van Zyl

The court dismissed a contempt application over Rule 43 non-compliance, found a material change in circumstances, and varied interim maintenance obligations.

• Rule 43 Variation
• Civil Contempt
• Interim Maintenance
• Material Change In Circumstances
• Costs In Interlocutory Applications
• Rule-43-variation

J.B and Another v J.L.S and Another (22199/2022)

J.B and Another v J.L.S and Another (22199/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1367 (31 December 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

22199/2022

Judge

T E Joyini

The court found that the first applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of a material change in circumstances since the previous Rule 43 order. The applicant did not annex relevant financial statements or bank records covering the period after the order, and his disclosures were incomplete. The court emphasized the duty of utmost good faith and full disclosure in Rule 43 applications, as established in Du Preez v Du Preez. The material non-disclosures meant the applicant was not before the court with clean hands, justifying refusal of the relief sought. The court exercised its discreti…

Source excerpt

• Rule 43 Variation
• Maintenance Pendente Lite
• Material Change In Circumstances
• Interim Relief
• Costs In The Cause

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

C.W.L v N.D.L (24232/2020) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1370 (30 December 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

24232/2020

Judge

Joyini

The court refused to increase Rule 43 maintenance, finding no material change in circumstances, but ordered a further R660,000 contribution to legal costs.

• Spousal Maintenance
• Contribution To Legal Costs
• Rule 43 Variation
• Equality Of Arms
• Rule-43
• Spousal-maintenance

J.H.M v L.E.M (116734/2023)

J.H.M v L.E.M (116734/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1277 (6 December 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

116734/2023

Judge

Oosthuizen-Senekal

The court dismissed a Rule 43(6) variation bid on maintenance, finding no material change in circumstances, but ordered equal crèche contributions and R80,000 legal costs.

• Rule 43 Variation
• Maintenance Pendente Lite
• Parental Rights And Responsibilities
• Contribution To Legal Costs
• Children S Act
• Change In Circumstances

R.C v M.C (5655/2024)

R.C v M.C (5655/2024) [2024] ZANWHC 302 (28 November 2024)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

5655/2024

Judge

WESSELS

The court held that Rule 43(6) does not permit the deletion and substitution of an existing order in the absence of a material change in circumstances. The relief sought by the applicant was akin to an appeal or review, which is not available in Rule 43 proceedings. The Constitutional Court in S v S and Another confirmed that Rule 43 orders are not appealable and that variation is only permissible where circumstances have materially changed. While the court retains an inherent discretion to remedy a patently unjust and erroneous order in exceptional cases, the present matter did not meet that…

Source excerpt

• Rule 43 Variation
• Parental Rights
• Primary Care And Residence
• Best Interests Of Child

J.D.K v J.K (584/2022)

J.D.K v J.K (584/2022) [2024] ZAECQBHC 58 (10 October 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Gqeberha

Case number

584/2022

Judge

NJ Mullins

The High Court varied a Rule 43 maintenance order for a major dependent child after changed circumstances, reducing monthly upkeep to R11,000 and deleting tertiary education costs.

• Rule 43 Variation
• Maintenance Of Major Child
• Changed Circumstances
• Contempt Of Court
• Rule-43-variation
• Maintenance-of-major-child