South Africa Case Law

B.U v C.M and Others (2025/017920)

B.U v C.M and Others (2025/017920) [2025] ZAWCHC 342 (12 August 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

2025/017920

Judge

Njokweni

The court found that the First Respondent's conditions for granting consent to the minor child's overseas travel were unreasonable and amounted to a refusal of consent. Despite the First Respondent's assertion that he did not oppose the travel, the conditions he sought to impose were excessive and not aligned with the child's best interests. The court exercised its jurisdiction under section 18(5) of the Children’s Act and section 28 of the Constitution, determining that the Applicant should be permitted to travel with the minor child to the Czech Republic, subject to reasonable conditions th…

Source excerpt

• Child Travel Consent
• Parental Responsibilities And Rights
• Best Interests Of Child
• Mirror Order
• Section 18 Children Act
• Section 28 Constitution

TCE v EE (113234/2023)

TCE v EE (113234/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 118 (6 February 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

113234/2023

Judge

B Neukircher

The court held that, given the ages and maturity of K and T, their strong desire for independent representation, and the history of feeling excluded and unheard by the curator ad litem, it was appropriate and necessary to confirm the appointment of Adv Strauss as their legal representative. The court distinguished the roles of the curator ad litem (best interests) and the child-directed legal representative (expressed wishes), finding that both roles can coexist depending on the facts. The court found no mala fides in Adv Strauss’s conduct, acknowledged her procedural errors but determined th…

Source excerpt

• Legal Representation Of Children
• Curator Ad Litem
• Divorce Proceedings
• Best Interests Of Child
• Section 28 Constitution
• Section 6 Divorce Act

N.F.M obo A.A.B.P v Minister of Police and Others (4626/2021)

N.F.M obo A.A.B.P v Minister of Police and Others (4626/2021) [2024] ZAMPMBHC 64; 2024 (2) SACR 651 (MM) (6 September 2024)

Court

Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

4626/2021

Judge

Msibi

The court dismissed the mother’s unlawful arrest claim but held that detaining her four-month-old baby in a police cell was unlawful and awarded damages.

• Unlawful Arrest
• Unlawful Detention
• Child Rights
• Damages Assessment
• Section 40 Criminal Procedure Act
• Section 28 Constitution

Tsutsa v City Power Johannesburg (Soc) Ltd (2024/068636)

Tsutsa v City Power Johannesburg (Soc) Ltd (2024/068636) [2024] ZAGPJHC 609 (27 June 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2024/068636

Judge

GC Wright

The High Court granted interim relief restoring electricity to an applicant and her minor child, issuing a rule nisi after disputed allegations of meter tampering.

• Interim Relief
• Electricity Supply Dispute
• Section 28 Constitution
• Prima Facie Rights
• Interim-relief
• Electricity-supply-dispute

Centre for Child Law v Director of Public Prosecutions, Johannesburg and Others (CCT210/21)

Centre for Child Law v Director of Public Prosecutions, Johannesburg and Others (CCT210/21) [2022] ZACC 35; 2022 (12) BCLR 1440 (CC); 2022 (2) SACR 629 (CC) (29 September 2022)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 210/21

Judges

Kollapen, Madlanga, Majiedt, Mathopo, Mlambo, Mhlantla, Theron, Tshiqi, Unterhalter

The Constitutional Court held that section 4(b) of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992 is unconstitutional to the extent that it criminalises the use and/or possession of cannabis by a child. The Court found that criminalisation exposes children to avoidable trauma, stigma, and a criminal record, infringing their rights to dignity and their best interests as protected by section 28 of the Constitution. The Court emphasised that less restrictive, rehabilitative means exist under the Children’s Act and the Prevention of and Treatment for Substance Abuse Act, which are more appropriat…

Source excerpt

• Best Interests Of The Child
• Criminalisation Of Cannabis
• Section 28 Constitution
• Status Offence
• Decriminalisation
• Child Justice Act

BE obo JE v MEC for Social Development, Western Cape (CCT 234/20)

BE obo JE v MEC for Social Development, Western Cape (CCT 234/20) [2021] ZACC 23; 2021 (10) BCLR 1087 (CC); 2022 (1) SA 1 (CC) (27 August 2021)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 234/20

Judges

Mogoeng, Jafta, Khampepe, Madlanga, Majiedt, Mhlantla, Pillay, Theron, Tlaletsi, Tshiqi

The Constitutional Court held that the Minister for Social Development, Western Cape, does not owe a private law duty to ensure the day-to-day safety of children at Early Childhood Development Centres and places of care. The regulatory framework, including the Child Care Act and its regulations, imposes oversight and registration duties but does not contemplate operational control or a duty to pay damages for injuries resulting from daily activities at such facilities. Imposing such liability would be unduly burdensome, create a chilling effect on the administration of thousands of centres na…

Source excerpt

• Wrongfulness
• Public Law Duty
• Child Care Facilities
• Section 28 Constitution
• Statutory Interpretation
• Regulatory Liability

E A and Others v Minister of Police (14/41567)

E A and Others v Minister of Police (14/41567) [2019] ZAGPJHC 9 (12 February 2019)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

14/41567

Judge

M M MABESELE

The court found that the arrest and detention of the first plaintiff were both unlawful and malicious, as the arresting officer failed to properly investigate the complainant's statement and acted without probable cause. The detention of the second and third plaintiffs, who were minor children, was unlawful and unconstitutional, as they were kept in the same holding cell with adults and deprived of appropriate care, violating section 28 of the Constitution. The evidence presented by the plaintiffs regarding the alleged abandonment of the fourth to sixth plaintiffs was found unreliable and con…

Source excerpt

• Unlawful Arrest
• Malicious Detention
• Children S Rights
• Damages Assessment
• Parental Care
• Section 28 Constitution

Raduvha v Minister of Safety and Security and Another (CCT151/15)

Raduvha v Minister of Safety and Security and Another (CCT151/15) [2016] ZACC 24; 2016 (10) BCLR 1326 (CC); 2016 (2) SACR 540 (CC) (11 August 2016)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 151/15

Judges

Mogoeng, Moseneke, Bosielo, Cameron, Froneman, Jafta, Khampepe, Madlanga, Mhlantla, Nkabinde, Zondo

The Constitutional Court held that both the arrest and detention of the applicant, a 15-year-old child, were unlawful and unconstitutional. The police failed to exercise their discretion under section 40(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and did not consider or accord paramount importance to the applicant's best interests as required by section 28(2) of the Constitution. The Court found that arrest and detention are separate processes, and that a child may only be detained as a measure of last resort. In this case, the police could have left the applicant in her father's custody, and there was…

Source excerpt

• Arrest And Detention Of Children
• Best Interests Of The Child
• Police Discretion
• Unlawful Arrest
• Damages For Unlawful Detention
• Section 28 Constitution

L v S (A18/2014)

L v S (A18/2014) [2014] ZAFSHC 192 (30 October 2014)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A18/2014

Judges

P. Daffue, H. Murray

The High Court dismissed an appeal against a three-year sentence for fraud, despite the appellant being a caregiver, and ordered child welfare monitoring.

• Fraud
• Sentencing Principles
• Best Interests Of Child
• Section 28 Constitution
• White Collar Crime
• Sentencing

Mpofu v Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development and Others (CCT 124/11)

Mpofu v Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development and Others (CCT 124/11) [2013] ZACC 15; 2013 (9) BCLR 1072 (CC); 2013 (2) SACR 407 (CC) (6 June 2013)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 124/11

Judges

Van der Westhuizen, Khampepe, Nkabinde, Skweyiya, Mogoeng, Moseneke, Cameron, Froneman, Jafta, Yacoob, Zondo

The majority held that the High Court misdirected itself by failing to properly consider the applicant's status as a child at the time of the offences, as indicated by references in the sentencing judgment that he was 20 at the time of sentencing, implying he was under 18 when the offences were committed. This misdirection was serious given the constitutional demands regarding child offenders. The majority found that the principle of res judicata did not bar the application because previous dismissals were not on the merits and the constitutional issue warranted a flexible approach. The missi…

Source excerpt

• Sentencing Of Child Offenders
• Section 28 Constitution
• Leave To Appeal
• Misdirection In Sentencing
• Condonation
• Fair Trial Rights