020029/2025_lh JUDGMENT
2025- 11- 12
1
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, JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO : 020029/2025
DATE : 12.11.2025
(1) REPORTABLE : NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES : NO
(3) REVISED 10
.
SIGNATURE DATE: 12 November 2025.
In the matter between
T[…] T[…]
and
20
M[…] N[…]
J U D G M E N T EX TEMPORE
WILSON , J: A short while ago I refused to postpone part A
of this application. In part A , the applicant seeks the
suspension of a Children's Court order granted on 24 April
2023 and various ancillary reli ef replacing the care, contact
020029/2025_lh JUDGMENT
2025- 11- 12
2
and residence regime set out in that order with interim
provision that the applicant sets out in the notice of motion.
There is also provision for the family advocate or a social
worker in private practice to conduct an investigation and
issue a report on the parties’ minor child' s best interests.
The difficulty with all the relief sought in part A is that
it seeks to supplant or at the very least interfere with the
order already granted in the Children's Court. I have no
jurisdiction to interfere with Children's Court proceedings
midstream or to vary or amend Children's Court orders 10
absent an appeal. I leave open the question of whether I
would be able to interfere with the disposition of the matter
in the Children's Court i f I had to do so while dealing with
another application, over which I had jurisdiction, but in
which relief was claimed that the Children's Court cannot
grant.
But that is not an issue presently before me. The
fundamental problem is that there is a Children's Court
order dealing comprehensively with the care, contact and
residence regime applicable in this case and there has been 20
no attempt to appeal, rescind it or vary that order in the
Children's Court itself. It seems to me to be plainly
contrary to the purposes of the Children's Act to i nterfere
with Children's Court proceedings in the absence of any
strong factual or legal reason to do so. Simply put , the
020029/2025_lh JUDGMENT
2025- 11- 12
3
Children's Court order stands and the applicant's remedies,
such as they are, lie in seeking to appeal or vary that order
in the Children's Court itself.
In part B , the applicant seeks a final order to be
granted, as he puts it, in line with the recommendations
contained in the reports provided for in part A. That is the
only substantive prayer in part B of the applicant's notice of
motion. T he other prayers deal solely with costs. The
purpose of part B is accordingly to confirm this c ourt's
interference with the scope and application of a Children's 10
Court order, which I have already found should be left
intact. It follows from all of this that a dismissal of part A of
the application must of necessity mean a dismissal of part
B. To put it another way, if part A is dismissed, there is no
basis on which to pursue part B.
For all those reasons I intend to refuse the
application as a whole on the basis that the relief sought in
it ought to be pursued in the Children's Court.
Accordingly, I make the following order –
1. The application is dismissed. 20
2. The applicant will pay the costs of this application.
…………………………..
WILSON , J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
12 November 2025