SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in
compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO: 90948/2015
DATE: 16-09-2025
(1) REPORTABLE: YES/NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO
(3) REVISED.
DATE: 29-09-2025
SIGNATURE
In the matter between
S[...] K[...] Applicant
and
T[...] B[...] K[...] & 5 OTHERS Respondent
JUDGMENT
NKOSI, AJ: The reasons for the order which I intend to make are as follows.
1. I have read the reports by all the experts before and after the appointment of
a Curatrix. I do not intend to repeat the contents thereof. However, I am satisfied with
the quality of the reports compiled after the appointment of the Curatrix and the well -
reasoned recommendation of the panel of experts who conducted their
investigations prior to the appointment of the Curatrix.
2. All the reports and previous recommendations lead to a single conclusion,
that the status quo before and currently does not serve the best interest of both
children.
3. The children live with the first respondent yet their well -being has taken a turn
for the worst. They believe that their father molested them sexually and this belief is
fortified by the first respondent's lack of positive intervention. The reports before
Court do not support the allegation of sexual molestation. A criminal -charge was
investigated and it resulted in a nolle prosequi decision.
4. The assessment findings by Ms Wolmarans revealed that, while in their
mother's primary care, the children have been subjected to an emotionally adverse
and potentially abusive environment. This clearly calls for the Court's intervention as
the upper guardian of all minor children. Such environment will certainly impair their
potential abilities and deny them the opportunity they deserve of growing to be
positive and responsible persons.
5. I agree with the Curatrix's view that the children harbour a lot of anger and
resentment towards the applicant. In my view, the first respondent's lack of positive
initiatives to deal with such anger and resentment, has encouraged the children to
maintain their attitude believing that they are right and their mother approves.
6. The combined summons in the divorce action between the parties was issued
by the first respondent on 10 November 2015, approximately ten (10) years ago and
the action is yet to be finalised. The delay in finalising the divorce action and the fact
that she has not promoted contact between the children and the applicant feed to the
narrative that she is not prepared to allow her children to have contact with their
father. Unfortunately, she has failed to demonstrate that there are lawful grounds for
such refusaI.
7. I am enjoined by the provisions of the Constitution and the Children's Act to
7. I am enjoined by the provisions of the Constitution and the Children's Act to
protect the children from contaminated influences and negative and false narrative
reinforcement which the first respondent is the author thereof. It will therefore not
serve the best interests of the children if they were to continue living with the first
respondent.
8. I am further of the view that at this stage, it will also not be in their best
interest to be left in the care of the applicant considering the long duration that has
elapsed since they had a healthy contact with their father and the fact that they
refused to have contact with the applicant.
9. I have read and considered the draft order uploaded on CaseLines 29-8 to 14
and in my view, it serves the best interests of the children.
10. I accordingly order that the draft order on Case Lines 28-8 to 14 is made an
order of this Court.
NKOSI, AJ
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
DATE: 29-09-2025