South Africa Case Law

Central Authority of the Republic of South Africa and Another v Engelenhoven and Another (43352/21)

Central Authority of the Republic of South Africa and Another v Engelenhoven and Another (43352/21) [2021] ZAGPPHC 699 (11 October 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

43352/21

Judge

E van der Schyff

The court found that the determination of habitual residence requires a factual analysis of the children's integration, parental intentions, and the circumstances of their stay in Germany. While the family resided in Germany for 19 months, the evidence showed that only one child, M, began to integrate, while the others remained emotionally and socially tied to South Africa. The respondent's intention to keep the option open to return, the lack of language acquisition, and the absence of social connections indicated that the children did not acquire habitual residence in Germany except for M,…

Source excerpt

• Hague Child Abduction Convention
• Habitual Residence
• Wrongful Removal
• Best Interests Of The Child
• Intolerable Situation
• Parental Rights

A.K.N v Central Authority for the Republic of South Africa (AR 571/15)

A.K.N v Central Authority for the Republic of South Africa (AR 571/15) [2016] ZAKZPHC 43 (10 May 2016)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR 571/15

Judges

Lopes, P Bezuidenhout, Gyanda

Hague Convention child-abduction appeal: the court set aside the return order, held the child should remain in South Africa, and ordered contact supervision.

• Hague Convention Child Abduction
• Child Custody Jurisdiction
• Best Interests Of Child
• Wrongful Removal
• Settled Child Exception
• Grave Risk Exception

Central Authority for the Republic of South Africa v A.K.N (1876/2014)

Central Authority for the Republic of South Africa v A.K.N (1876/2014) [2015] ZAKZDHC 1 (7 January 2015)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

1876/2014

Judge

Mbatha

The court found that the respondent unlawfully and wrongfully removed the minor child S[...] S[...] R[...] from Northern Ireland to South Africa in breach of the Hague Convention and relevant court orders. The respondent failed to discharge the onus under Article 13(b) and Article 12 to demonstrate that the child is now settled in her new environment or that there is a grave risk of harm if returned. The best interests of the child require that she maintain contact with both parents and siblings, which has been severed by the respondent's actions. The allegations of abuse raised by the respon…

Source excerpt

• International Child Abduction
• Hague Convention
• Custody And Residence
• Best Interests Of Child
• Wrongful Removal
• Return Of Child

Central Authority v Goosen (54790/10)

Central Authority v Goosen (54790/10) [2010] ZAGPPHC 226 (9 December 2010)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

54790/10

Judge

Botha

The High Court ordered the return of a child to the United Kingdom under the Hague Convention, rejecting arguments that the child was settled in South Africa.

• Hague Convention Child Abduction
• Habitual Residence
• Wrongful Removal
• Settled Environment Exception
• Legal Aid Conditions
• Hague-convention-child-abduction

Family Advocate, Cape Town and Another v E.M (15972/2008)

Family Advocate, Cape Town and Another v E.M (15972/2008) [2008] ZAWCHC 80; 2009 (5) SA 420 (WCC) (28 November 2008)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

15972/2008

Judge

Madima AJ

Hague Convention child abduction matter ordered the child’s return to the United Kingdom, finding wrongful retention and no clear consent or acquiescence.

• International Child Abduction
• Hague Convention
• Wrongful Removal
• Habitual Residence
• Parental Responsibility
• Return Order