1
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Case Number: 2024/117895
In the matter between:
In the matter between:
SLM Applicant
and
FRRM Respondent
JUDGMENT
[1] The applicant (SLM and hereinafter referred to as to as the mother ) and the
respondent (FRRM and hereinafter referred to as the father ) were previously
married. Two children were born of t heir marriage, namely ARM and LGM who are
now respectively eleven and seven years of age (the children).
[2] The bonds of marriage between the mother and the father were dissolved in
and during March 2020. A consent paper was made an order of court on that
occasion.
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED: YES
______________ _________________________
DATE SIGNATURE
2
[3] In terms of the consent paper the primary residence of the children was
awarded to the mother . The mother and father remained co- holders of full parental
rights and responsibilities in respect of the children and the father enjoyed extensive
rights of contact.
[4] The parties thereafter maintained their places of residence in Johannesburg
and by all indications the provisions of the consent paper relating to the primary
residence of the children. Once their parental rights and responsibilities where
maintained. So, too, were the contact regimes which had been put in place. The
parties from time to time discussed the desirability of relocating from Johannesburg
to Cape Town and agreed in principle that there was a strong possibility of that
happening, provided that the father was able to sell his home at a favourable price
and that he was able to secure his employer’s consent to working in Cape Town, as
opposed to Johannesburg.
[5] In and during June 2024 the mother pronounced her int ention of moving to
Cape Town. She had two objectives in mind. She firstly wished to secure gainful
employment in that city which , when compared to Johannesburg, offered her much
greater opportunity. She moreover wished to establish a home for both herself and
the children. It was, according to the mother , envisaged by both her and the father
that the children would relocate to Cape Town at the end of 2024 . By then, so the
mother thought, the father would have sold his home in Johannesburg and secure d
his employer’s consent to work in Cape Town.
[6] True to that intention the mother moved to Cape Town. She secured a
number of work opportunities which greatly improved her financial position. She
moreover was able to secure accommodation for both her and the children. She
made arrangements for their schooling in that city.
[7] She had i n the interim placed the children in the care of the father , which
situation was to endure until as they joined her in Cape Town at the end of 2024.
[8] The mother’s expectations were short-lived. The father withdrew his home
from the market, apparently because it had become depressed. It is moreover
3
apparent that the had father made little effort (if any) to secure his employ er’s
consent to relocate to Cape Town.
[9] The father’s stance on the matter is that a firm decision had not been taken in
relation to the relocation of either him or the mother to Cape Town. According to him
the matter had still to be further discussed. He is this regard stated that the decision
of the mother to relocate was unilateral and premature and that he had no intention
of permitting the children to move to Cape Town and to stay with the mother, at least
not until the matter had been fully discussed and agreed upon. A clear im passe
developed and on 11 October 2024 the mother instituted an urgent application in
which she sought an order for the variation of the consent paper to, inter alia, provide
that the children were to reside with her in Cape Town. This application was
opposed by the father.
[10] I cannot resolve the conflicting versions of the mother and father in relation to
her move to Cape Town and the circumstances under which that occurred. I
consequently need to independently determine whether the best interests of the
children will be served should they relocate to Cape Town and assume permanent
residence with their mother in that city . I at present do not have sufficient evidential
material to responsibly make that determination.
[11] This has been recognised by the parties . The accordingly submitted a joint
draft order regulating the future conduct of the matter , with the request that it be
made an order of court . They were, however, not able to agree upon on one aspect.
This relates to the question whether the mother is to financially contribute to the
contact regime which the parties envisage will take effect until the matter is finally
determined. This financial contribution relates to whether the father or mother is to
bear costs of air tickets to fly the children from Johannesburg to Cape Town and
back so as to enable them to be with the mother over one weekend a month.
[12] The costs involved in finalising the matter will be paid by the father. These
costs will in every likelihood be substantial. The mother’s financial position has
greatly improved since her move to Cape Town and it seems t o me only proper that
the single item of expenditure in issue ought to be paid by the mother. It is likely
4
within her means to do so. I thus intend completing the draft order to give effect to
my finding in this regard.
[13] In the result the draft order initialled and dated by me and attached hereto
marked “X” is made an order of court.
G FARBER
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
JOHANNESBURG
APPEARANCES
FOR APPLICANT: ADV T EICHNER-VISSER
INSTRUCTED BY: BLAKE ATTORNEYS
Greenacres Office Park
Barry Hertzog Avenue
Greenside, Johannesburg
Tel: 011 442 1991
E-mail: blake@blakeattorneys.co.za
Ref: M00057/C00278
FOR THE RESPONDENT: ADV G OLWAGEN-MEYER
SHABAN CLARK COETZEE
Walbrooke House
37 Glenhove Road
Melrose Estate, Johannesburg
Tel: 011 442 8400
E-mail: will@shabanclack.co.za
simone@shabanclack.co.za
bridget@shabanclack.co.za
Ref: W Clark/SS/M98