Esheria South Africa Case Law
Sign in
South Africa Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

South Africa Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
2 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter South Africa case law

Results update automatically as you type.

South Africa decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Family And Children [2022] ZAWCHC 74

A.V.W v S.V.W and Others (3118/2021)

A.V.W v S.V.W and Others (3118/2021) [2022] ZAWCHC 74 (20 April 2022)

Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Case number
3118/2021
Judge
De Wet

The court found that the first defendant raised bona fide disputes regarding the adequacy of maintenance for the minor child, the enforceability of the consent paper, and the validity of the waiver of spousal maintenance. The court emphasized its statutory duty under the Divorce Act to ensure maintenance arrangements for minor children are satisfactory and that settlement agreements in divorce matters are subject to judicial scrutiny. Given the lack of evidence to determine whether the agreement served the best interests of the minor child and the unresolved issues regarding trust property an…

Source excerpt

  • Divorce Act
  • Maintenance Of Minor Child
  • Spousal Maintenance
  • Settlement Agreement Enforceability
  • Waiver Of Maintenance
  • Trust Property In Divorce
Read case analysis
Family And Children [2002] ZAECHC 7

Biggs v Biggs (81/2001)

Biggs v Biggs (81/2001) [2002] ZAECHC 7 (12 April 2002)

Court
High Courts - Eastern Cape
Case number
81/2001
Judge
A.R. Erasmus

The court declined to rule on the special case because the trusts, whose assets are central to the dispute, were not joined as parties, and the procedure adopted under rule 33(1) was inappropriate since it did not dispose of the whole dispute between the parties. The court found it lacked jurisdiction to determine the matter under rule 33(1) or (4) as it was not seized with the main divorce action. Issuing a declaratory order was also inappropriate due to the absence of the trusts and the academic nature of the question. The court further held that any declaration of rights under the Constitu…

Source excerpt

  • Divorce Act Section 7
  • Redistribution Of Estate
  • Trust Property In Divorce
  • Joinder Of Parties
  • Declaratory Orders
Read case analysis
Civil Procedure [2002] ZAECHC 6

Biggs v Biggs (ECJ 2004/013)

Biggs v Biggs (ECJ 2004/013) [2002] ZAECHC 6 (12 April 2002)

Court
High Courts - Eastern Cape
Case number
ECJ 2004/013
Judge
Erasmus

The court declined to rule on the special case due to procedural and jurisdictional defects. The trusts, whose assets are central to the dispute, were not joined as parties, resulting in non-joinder. Rule 33(1) is inappropriate as it is designed for the disposal of the entire dispute, not for piecemeal adjudication. Rule 33(4) could only be invoked by the court seized with the main action, which was not the case here. The court also lacked jurisdiction to issue a declaratory order or declaration of rights, as any order would not bind the trial court and would be merely academic. The procedure…

Source excerpt

  • Rule 33 Uniform Rules
  • Non Joinder
  • Declaratory Orders
  • Redistribution Of Estate
  • Trust Property In Divorce
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

South Africa decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.