Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
MB v LC and Another (21586/2023) [2024] ZAWCHC 61; 2024 (6) SA 546 (WCC) (29 February 2024)
Hague Convention application for the return of two children to Australia was dismissed after the court found consent, alternatively acquiescence, to their stay in South Africa.
Koch N O and Another v Ad hoc Central Authority for the Republic of South Africa and Another (188/2021) [2022] ZASCA 60; [2022] 3 All SA 17 (SCA); 2022 (6) SA 323 (SCA) (26 April 2022)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the child’s continued retention in South Africa was wrongful, but the article 13(b) grave-risk defence succeeded and return to the UK was refused.
Chief Family Advocate of the Republic of South Africa as represented by Mr Keuben Gounden, Senior Family Advocate, East London v IRRJ (EL528/2019; 1730/2019) [2019] ZAECELLC 17 (16 August 2019)
High Court Hague Convention case ordering the return of two children to New Zealand after finding their retention in South Africa wrongful.
L v Central Authority for the Republic South Africa and Another (24108/2016) [2018] ZAGPJHC 12 (20 February 2018)
The court found that the factual circumstances overwhelmingly demonstrated that the children’s habitual residence was Oslo, Norway, at the time of their retention in South Africa. The family had relocated to Oslo in 2013 with the intention to settle there, as evidenced by their registration, citizenship, schooling, medical arrangements, and the appellant’s own conduct in seeking permanent residence and employment in Norway. The existence of a home in Johannesburg was a neutral fact and did not alter the conclusion. The court further found that there was no evidence of consent or acquiescence…
Source excerpt
L v Center Authority for the Republic of South Africa and Another (A5055/2016, 24108/2016) [2018] ZAGPJHC 71 (20 February 2018)
The High Court held that the children’s habitual residence was Norway and rejected claims of consent or acquiescence to their retention in South Africa.
Central Authority for the Republic of South Africa v O (19685/2015) [2018] ZAGPJHC 15 (13 February 2018)
The court found that although proceedings commenced within the 12-month period prescribed by Article 12 of the Hague Convention, the significant delay in resolution and the evidence presented demonstrated that J had settled in South Africa. Expert reports from the curatrix ad litem, social worker, and educational psychologist unanimously indicated that uprooting J from his environment would expose him to severe psychological harm and place him in an intolerable situation. The respondent's financial vulnerability in Ireland and lack of support further substantiated the risk of harm. The court…
Source excerpt
Family Advocate v F ; F v F and Others (3245/14 , 3454/14) [2014] ZAECPEHC 93 (28 November 2014)
The court found, on a balance of probabilities, that the complainant did not consent to the permanent relocation of the minor child to South Africa, but only to a holiday visit. The respondent’s actions in retaining the child and refusing to return her to the United Kingdom constituted wrongful retention under the Hague Convention. The evidence did not support the respondent’s defence of consent or acquiescence, nor did it establish a grave risk to the child under Article 13(1)(b). The best interests of the child, while paramount under South African law, do not override the Convention’s requi…
Source excerpt
N.F v M.C (17845/2012) [2012] ZAWCHC 198 (27 November 2012)
The court dismissed a Hague Convention return application, finding the applicant failed to prove wrongful retention or an express agreement to return the child by 29 December 2012.
Central Authority for Republic of South Africa v Iguwa (10/15111) [2010] ZAGPJHC 62 (27 August 2010)
The court found that the minor child’s habitual residence was Ireland, and that the respondent’s retention of the child in South Africa was wrongful under the Hague Convention and the Act. The mother, Mlotshwa, had custody by virtue of a court order, and her consent for the child’s visit did not amount to consent for permanent retention. The respondent’s claim of custody was based on a tampered document and was rejected. The court held that the child was not settled in South Africa, as evidenced by poor school performance, and that the alleged objection to return was not credible given the ch…
Source excerpt
E.M v Family Advocate, Cape Town and Another (15972/2008) [2009] ZAWCHC 5 (17 February 2009)
The High Court refused leave to appeal in a Hague Convention child abduction matter, holding there was no reasonable prospect of another court reaching a different result.
Explore more
