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: 2023/047712
In the matter between:
D[...] T[...] N[...] Applicant
and
J[...] M[...] Respondent
DATE OF JUDGMENT : This judgment is issued by the Judge whose name is reflected
herein and is submitted electronically to the parties/their legal representatives by email. The
judgment is further uploaded to the electronic file of this matter on CaseLines by the Judge’s
secretary. The date of the judgment is deemed to be 30 March 2026.
JUDGMENT
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED.
30 March 2026 _____________________
Date K. La M Manamela
Manamela, J
Introduction
[1] The applicant, Ms D[...] T[...] N[...], seeks relief in terms of Rule 43 1 of the Uniform
Rules of this Court. The applicant and her estranged husband, Mr J[...] M[...], the respondent ,
were married to each other in September 2019 in terms of customary law. In May 2023, the
applicant initiated divorce proceedings in this Court. The respondent had by then already left
the common household in November 2021. The applicant says that, in fact, she has been
separated from the respondent as husband and wife since August 2021. Two minor children
were born from their relationship (prior to the marriage) in September 2012 and December
2018.
[2] Both parties say that they are currently unemployed. The applicant voluntarily resigned
from her job as head of internal audit at the South African Police Service (‘SAPS’) on 31
March 2024. The respondent had also resigned from h is employment, a few years earlier, in
December 2019. Naturally, they have both already received their pension benefits . But both
of them now say that their respective pension funds have been depleted. The applicant says
she is without any source of income and requires maintenance f or herself and the minor
children from the respondent. The respondent, in turn, says that he has no money, as he
survives on the R350 government unemployment grant.
[3] The relief sought by the applicant from the respondent in this Rule 43 application is ,
essentially, in the following terms: (a) payment in the amount of R3 000 per month , as
maintenance, for each of the two minor children; (b) school fees and other educational
1 Uniform Rule 43(1) provides as follows: ‘[t]his rule shall apply whenever a spouse seeks relief from the
court in respect of one or more of the following matters: (a) Maintenance pendente lite ; (b) A
contribution towards the costs of a matrimonial action, pending or about to be instituted; (c) Interim care
of any child; (d) Interim contact with any child.’
expenses for the minor children in the amount of R2 519; (c) payment in the amount of R10
000 per month as the applicant’s spousal maintenance ; (d) primary residence of the minor
children to continue vest ing in the applicant, with the r espondent granted specific parental
responsibilities and rights as to contact with the children , and (e) contribution towards the
applicant’s costs in the amount of R150 000. The application is opposed by the respondent.
[4] The matter came before me in the Family Court on 23 March 2026 . Ms R Andrews
appeared for the applicant and Mr K Makobe appeared for the respondent. I reserved this
judgment after listening to oral submissions by both counsel. The judgment also benefited
from counsel’s written submissions filed.
Applicant’s case (including submissions on her behalf)
[5] The applicant, as already mentioned, is currently unemployed. She resigned from her
employment as the SAPS’ head of internal audit in March 2024 . She cite d financial
constraints as the reason for her resignation. She wanted to access her pension benefits earlier
in order to provide for herself and the minor children. She had by then been separated from
the respondent for approximately three years.
[6] According to the applicant, the respondent has not made any financial contribution
towards maintenance of her and the minor children since their separation in August 2021. She
had to utilise the pension benefits she received to support herself and the children. It is
notable that the applicant has not disclosed the amount she received as pension benefits in her
papers pivoting this application. But she says that, as at the time of the l aunch of this
application, which was around June last year , she only had about R135 000 left from her
pension funds. With the passage of time t he benefits have been depleted, it is submitted by
her counsel.
[7] The applicant and the children are now staying with her mother in Mamelodi East ,
within the Tshwane Metropolitan. But she desires to find a place of her own to share with the
children. They require an amount of R60 837.93 per month as maintenance from the
respondent to defray their monthly living expenses, including lodging. She says this amount
would, actually, not be enough to cover ad hoc expenses, such as the children’s extra mural
activities, day -to-day expenses and unexpected medical expenses. She has no remaining
assets or financial resources to deploy towards these expenses, she contends.
[8] It is the applicant’s view – said to be without a doubt - that the respondent has the
ability to pay t he amount of R60 837.93 sought for monthly maintenance for her and the
minor children. The respondent, she points out, received a large amount as pension and has
been extravagantly spending it on luxury and exorbitant items, including alcohol, fast food,
lottery or gambling, and large online purcha ses. His defences to the relief sought in this
application, including that he is without any income or means , ought to be rejected by the
Court, it is argued.
[9] The issues in the divorce action were previously referred to the office of the Family
Advocate for investigation. The Family Advocate furnished a report in June 2025. The report
includes the following conclusions and/or recommendations: (a) the relationship between the
minor children and the r espondent is strained and would benefit from rebuilding measures;
(b) contact by the respondent with the older minor child ought to be facilitated through
bonding therapy sessions overseen by a social worker or a therapist, and (c) contact between
the respondent and the younger minor child ought to be, mainly, on alternate weekends.
[10] The applicant supports her claim for contribution by the respondent towards her costs in
the divorce action in the amount of R150 000 as follows. The contribution is required to
ensure that there is an equality of arms between the respondent and her , as par ties in the
divorce litigation .2 I hasten to point out a glaring fact that the respondent is legally
represented in these proceedings by Legal Aid South Africa (‘Legal Aid’). I don’t think Legal
Aid charges anything for its services. This aspect has been specifically raised by the
respondent, but was not addressed in the submissions.
[11] Still on the issue of the contribution sought, the applicant also raises the following: (a)
the respondent has frustrated the litigation process ; (b) failed to offer his cooperation during
the process of discovery of documents and in respect of the Court orders compelling him to
effect discovery, and, (c), generally, the respondent has failed to comply with other processes
of the Court.
[12] It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that the right to dignity would have no
meaning where a spouse is deprived of the necessary means to litigate. The quality of this
right is lessened when a person (such as the applicant in this matter) h as to go around to
friends, family or, even, an adversary (such as the respondent in this matter) with a begging
bowl seeking a gift or contribution towards costs.
[13] Also, the mutual duty of support owed by the one spouse to the other binds the spouse
with sufficient means to fund , partly or fully, the reasonable litigation of the other spouse
lacking such means. It is submitted that the respondent in this application is the spouse with a
means. All these , it is further submitted, confirm the tenets of the right to equal protection
and benefit of the law3 and the right to human dignity.4
[14] An assessment of the quantum of the appropriate contribution to be ordered to enable
the seek er of the c ontribution to adequately present its case before the court involves a
consideration of the following circumstances of the case before the court: (a) the respective
2 Cary v Cary 1999 (3) SA 615 (C) at 621.
3 Section 9(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act, 1996.
3 Section 9(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act, 1996.
4 Section 10 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act, 1996.
financial position of the warring parties; (b) the nature and extent of the issues in the pending
litigation; (c) essential disbursements to be incurred; (d) the scale at which the prospective
contributor was conducting its own side of the litigation.5
[15] The determination of the quantum of the appropriate contribution towards costs enjoins
the Court to apply the provisions of section 9(1)6 of the Constitution of the Republic of South
Africa Act, 1996 (‘the Constitution’) guaranteeing the right to equal protection and benefit of
the law to every person .7 The essence of this exercise is to bear in mind that contribution
towards costs would be justified where it would ensure the equality of arms in the pending
divorce action between the seeker and the contributor . The mischief guarded against by this
principle or rule is that the party who is to receive the contribution sought would be
incapacitated to present its case fairly without such contribution, which could be employed,
for example, towards a comprehensive investigation of the financial affairs of the contributor
where there is non-disclosure of same.8
[16] In this matter , contribution is also considered warranted due to what is viewed as a
clear attitude of the respondent to protract the divorce proceedings in order to avoid payment
of maintenance towards the children and the applicant in breach of his duty of support. 9 The
respondent has no appetite for an early divorce or settlement of any aspect thereof. Even in
this rule 43 proceedings, he did not bother to ma ke any tender regarding the amount for a
legal contribution. Consequently, the applicant ought to brace herself f or a long haul in the
progression of the divorce, a plight which would require a considerable amount of funding
towards continued retention of her attorneys and the relevant experts towards trial, the
5 Cary v Cary 1999 (3) SA 615 (C) at 619-620.
6 Section 9(1) of the Constitution.
7 Cary v Cary 1999 (3) SA 615 (C) at 621.
8 Ibid.
6 Section 9(1) of the Constitution.
7 Cary v Cary 1999 (3) SA 615 (C) at 621.
8 Ibid.
9 Dawood and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others; Shalabi and Another v Minister of Home
Affairs and Others ; Thomas and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others 2000 (3) SA 936; 2000
(8) BCLR 837 (7 June 2000) [31].
submission concludes.
[17] Overall, it is submitted that th e amount of R150 000 sought as contribution towards the
applicant’s costs is reasonable and affordable to the respondent.
Respondent’s case (including submissions on his behalf)
[18] The respondent, as already stated, is opposing this a pplication. He labels the se
proceedings an abuse and quest on the part of the applicant to unnecessarily escalate costs.
Paramount amongst the respondent’s defences is that he finds the monetary part of the relief
sought by the applicant unaffordable, as he is unemployed. It is common cause that the
respondent resigned from his job in December 2019. The respondent considers the
applicant’s claim for interim m aintenance to be incompetent as no claim for spousal
maintenance forms part of the divorce action. But this was not persisted with at the hearing. I,
also, don’t think it deserves any further attention.
[19] The respondent also raised a preliminary objection or point in limine in his opposition
of this application regarding the deposition (or prescribed oath) to the founding affidavit. He
says that the prescribed oath was not properly administered when the affidavit was signed in
breach of regulations 2 and 4 of the Regulations Governing the Administ ering of Oath or
Affirmation.10 It is common cause that the affidavit did not indicate when the oath was
administered to the applicant when signing same . The applicant - after the fact - had to
acquire from a Mr Stefan Bezuidenhout , said to have been the commissioner of oaths
involved in the deposition, a confirmatory affidavit. Mr Bezuidenhout explained that the
10 Regulation 2, deals the questions to be posed by the commissioner of oaths when administering to any
person an oath or affirmation, and regulation 4 concerns the certification by the commissioner of oaths
below the signature by the deponent that the latter has acknowl edged that she or he ‘knows and
understands the contents of the declaration and [she or he has stated] the manner, place and date of taking
the declaration ’, as well as the signature by and other details of the commissioner of oaths . The
Regulations Governing the Administering of an Oath or Affirmation were published under G overnment
Notice R1258 in the Government Gazette 3619 of 21 July 1972 in terms of the Justices of the Peace and
Commissioners of Oaths Act 16 of 1963.
applicant appeared before him on 23 June 2025 and was a dministered the prescribed oath.
But, I now realise that this does not appear to be correct , as in terms of CaseLines filing
platform, the notice of motion and founding affidavit w ere electronically filed on 19 June
2025. This, if the date stated by Mr Bezuidenhout for the deposition is correct, would have
preceded the alleged deposition. I also note that the commissioner of oaths to Mr
Bezuidenhout’s confirmatory affidavit is Mr Richard Bollaert, the applicant’s attorney. 11 I do
not know what to make of all these. It doesn’t appear that those involved take these matters of
deposition seriously and it’s a concern to the Court. The respondent, through his counsel,
appeared to have let go of the objection . I also do not think that anything should turn on the
deposition issue, as I am not aware of any prejudice or was alerted to it. But, above all, I am
buoyed - in adopting this approach - by the interests of the minor children involved in this
matter. To allow these mat ters to derail the application or its outcome, would unfairly
disregard those interests. Hopefully, there would be a change in attitude by those involved.
[20] The respondent appears to be slightly surprised at being hauled before the Court by the
applicant. The applicant, he says, knows he is unemployed. This fact is also recorded in the
report by the Family Advocate, he adds. He would contribute towards maintenance of the
children should he secure employment. He says that he relies on the government social grant
of R350 per month for survival. But he appears to be saying that this was only the case after
he had used up the proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home in 2022 until the years
2024, and not beyond.12
[21] The respondent, as stated above, resigned from his job on 31 December 2019. On 25
February 2020 he received payment, ostensibly as pension funds, in the amount of
February 2020 he received payment, ostensibly as pension funds, in the amount of
R2 245 247. It is common cause that he was not yet separated from the applicant by this date.
11 CaseLines 23-2. See regulation 7 of the Regulations Governing the Administering of an Oath or
Affirmation.
12 Answering affidavit par 7.3, CL 25-82.
The separation is said to have occurred in August 2021. He denies the applicant’s allegation
that he was paid an additional amount of R1 765 261. Similarly, to the applican t, the
respondent says that he resigned his job due to financial hardship. He used his pension money
to the benefit of the joint household and to settle the debts of the joint estate. He had hoped to
resume gainful employ ment, thereafter, but in vain . He s ays that once his funds were
exhausted, conflicts ensued between the applicant and him. He had become expendable to the
applicant from a financial point of view. He denies that he receives pension income of
R39 839 alleged by the applicant. He would have not satisfied the means test to qualify for
representation by Legal Aid, he pointed out.
[22] The respondent alleges that the applicant has hidden her pension funds and does not
believe that she is only left w ith an amount of R135 000, as she claims. She has failed to
disclose or account for the amount of R3 million she received as pension benefits. The
applicant also took with assets worth over R250 000 upon division of the joint estate , the
respondent’s contention concludes.
[23] Further, the respondent denies that he never made any contribution to the children since
his separation from the applicant. He lists his contribution s as follows: (a) on 11 October
2022 he paid R90 000 as school fees for the children, as part of his proceeds from the sale of
the matrimonial home; (b) he waived his right to his share from the proceeds in the amount of
R100 000 in favour of the children , and (c) he received only R300 000 from the proceeds
whilst the applicant received R500 000, as the custodian parent. He labels the omission of
these facts from the applicant’s papers as her quest to incorrectly portray him as an
irresponsible parent.
[24] The respondent point s to the fact that the applicant received a pension pay -out in the
amount of around R3 million. He says these funds were meant to be preserved until the
finalisation of the divorce, but only to learn from the papers in this application that they have
been apparently depleted. He attributes this to the applicant’s lifestyle.
[25] Regarding contact with the children, the respondent blames the applicant. He says his
persistent attempts to regain contact with the children has been frustrated by the applicant.
She even blocked his communication with them . He places his hope on the Family
Advocate’s report and the outcome of the divorce. He agrees with the recommendation s by
the Family Advocate as to the primary residence and contact with the children. The report by
the Family Advocate was released on 10 June 2025 . The applicant has denied him contact
with the children, despite the recommendations in the report on contact.
[26] The criticism by the respondent of the applicant’s claim for interim mai ntenance
includes what appears next. The respondent says that the expenses reflected by the applicant
are grossly inflated and has no relevance to the applicant’s actual standard of living. The
figures are exaggerated and do not correspond with the standard of living during the period
the parties stayed together. For example, the applicant and the children do not have lodging
expenses. They stay for free in Mamelodi West at the applicant’s parental home . And in that
part of Tshwane the utilities do n ot amount to R3 766.11 per month , as claimed by the
applicant. One of the minor children obtained a scholarship or fee exempt ion to attend Curro
Mamelodi and, thus, pays no school fees. The applicant’s claim ought to be dismissed with
costs, the respondent urges the Court.
Issues to be determined
[27] To recap, the applicant in t his opposed rule 43 application seeks from the respondent
the following relief: (a) monthly maintenance for the two minor children; (b) her own
monthly maintenance as the respondent’s spouse; (c) primary residence of the minor children
monthly maintenance as the respondent’s spouse; (c) primary residence of the minor children
(with the respondent afforded specific parental rights and responsibilities as to contact), and
(d) contribution by the respondent towards he r costs in further litigation in the divorce . The
first two (i.e. a and b) will be discussed together under the rubric ‘maintenance’.
[28] These issues appear to accord with the cases put forward by the parties as dispositive of
this matter. These are the primary issues and, no doubt, secondary issues may arise in the
discussion. The monetary part of the relief sought, also involves a concomitant determination
whether the respondent has the necessary means to pa y the amount(s) which may be
established as payable for the benefit of the children and the applicant.
Maintenance
[29] The applicant says she requires a min imum of R60 837.93 on a monthly basis as
maintenance for her and the kids. But at the end of the hearing – in the draft order the
applicant’s counsel urged the Court to adopt – only R8 519 per month was stated as required
for the children. Of this amount R6 000 (i.e. R3000 each) is towards maintenance and R2 519
the children’s school fees and educational expenses . It is common cause that one of the
children is exempted from paying school fees. These figures appear to be reasonable.
[30] The applicant says she requires R10 000 for herself. I am not certain how this amount is
calculated, but it also appears reasonable when determined from its constituent individual
amounts as stated in the financial disclosure form (‘FDF’). But it is critical that the applicant
has not bothered to reveal how much she received as pension benefits. The respondent says it
is around R3 million . The applicant says that she resigned in March 2024. This is about two
years or twenty four months ago. She resigned to access her pension to settle her debts, but
does not take the Court into her confidence by providing details of how her pension pay -out
(whatever the size thereof) was disbursed. At a monthly rate she would have had to spend
R125 000 of the R3 million to be penniless by now. She is also said to have received
R125 000 of the R3 million to be penniless by now. She is also said to have received
R500 000 from the sale proceeds of the parties’ matrimonial home. This too was not
disclosed by the applicant , but only came from the respondent . The applicant also disclosed
that she owns an Audi Q3 motor vehicle valued between R430 000 and R600 000. She does
not appear to be owing anything to a bank or financier on the vehicle. She did not disclose
when she acquired this or if she used her pension pay-out to purchase same, seeing that she
does not appear to owe anything on the vehicle. These issues are obviously not irrelevant to
the determination.
[31] It is s ubmitted that the respondent can afford t o pay maintenance now in the reduced
amount of R18 519 (from R60 837.93 ) per month for the applicant and the children. His
means is said to be the amounts of R 2 245 247, R1 765 261 and R39 839 received by th e
respondent. The first two as pension lumpsums and R39 839 as monthly pension income. The
respondent denies receiving the latter two amounts and I have nothing before me to suggest
the contrary.
[32] But the respondent has not provided any FDF detailing his financial and other rele vant
information or circumstances. It is common cause that he received the admitted payment of
R2 245 247 on 25 February 2020. This is six years or 72 months ago, as at the end of
February 2026. He has also disclosed that he received an amount of R300 000 from the
proceeds of the sale of the joint home, but did not provide the date of receipt. He says that he
qualified for representation by Legal Aid due to his financial hardship.
[33] During the hearing counsel for the applicant referred to possible investments,
cryptocurrencies and an amount of R1, 5 million possible being held with Discovery by the
respondent. There are also interbank transfers made in millions by the respondent, it was
submitted. The Court is referred to the respondent’s bank statements to confirm these. These I
have noted, are for the period between 2020 and 2022.
[34] I agree with the submissions on behalf of the applicant that litigants need to approach
the Court ‘with the utmost good faith ( uberrimae fidei ) and to disclose fully all material
information regarding their financial affairs ’,13 but this applies both ways. Although the
respondent has not provided any explanation or documents regarding how he spent the
R2 245 247 he received on 25 February 2020 , the applicant hasn’t even disclosed how much
she received. She may have taken a better step than the respondent by providing the FDF, but
the Court is in the dark as to how she utilised the R3 million , she allegedly received after
March 2024. When she deposed to the affidavit in support of this application on 23 June 2025
she stated to be having only R135 000 left from her pension funds. Assuming she received
her pension pay-out within three months after she resigned from her job in March 2024 (i.e.
by June 2024) it means she exhausted same within twelve months. Therefore, the respondent
does not seem to be alone in the game of hide and seek , which, it is submitted by the
applicant’s counsel , he is playing with the Court. He appears to have the applicant for a
companion. The same applies to the r espondent’s alleged guilt of a ‘catch me if you can ’
attitude.14 Perhaps, the applicant fared better by providing the mandatory FDF, but what did
she do with her pension payment only received less than two years ago, remains the question.
[35] On the basis of what appears above, I have nothing before me which clearly establishes
that the respondent has a financial means to afford the R18 519 per month sought from him
for maintenance of the applicant and the children. In fact, from the evidence I believe that
both parties, having cited their unemployment statuses and comparatively lacking candour in
how their respective pensions were spent, may have equal means of supporting the children
and themselves. Therefore, I will hold the respondent 50% liable for the amount of R18 519
sought as monthly maintenance and direct that he should pay an amount of R 9 259, 50 per
sought as monthly maintenance and direct that he should pay an amount of R 9 259, 50 per
month with effect from 1 May 2026.
13 Du Preez v Du Preez 2009 (6) SA 28 (T) [16].
14 B v B (700/2013) [2014] ZASCA 137 (25 September 2014) [39]-[40].
Primary residence of the minor children and the non -custodian parent’s rights as to
contact
[36] Under this part, t he draft order proposed on behalf of the applicant appears to accord
with the recommendations of the Family Advocate. I will adopt same to form part of the
order to be made. I will also hold the respondent liable for costs, if any, of a social worker or
therapist for the bonding therapy sessions to facilitate contact between the respondent and the
older minor child.
Contribution towards the applicant’s costs
[37] To recap, the applicant also seeks that the respondent be ordered to pay the amount of
R150 000, as contribution towards her costs. She says that this i s reasonable and affordable
by the respondent.
[38] The applicant says that she requires an equality of arms between the respondent and
herself as parties in the divorce litigation. 15 This, it is among others submitted, would be for
her to realise t he protection of her right under section 9(1) 16 of the Constitution which
guarantees equal protection and benefit of the law to every person.17
[39] But it is common cause that the respondent’s arms or army (read, legal representation)
in this litigation is provided by the office of Legal Aid. This is also the case in the divorce.
The applicant has retained attorneys in private practice from the beginning.
[40] Therefore, based on what I have stated immediately above and with regard to the issue
of maintenance further above, I consider doing justice between the parties by holding that the
respondent,18 at this stage, is not required to make any cont ribution towards the applicant’s
costs.
15 Cary v Cary 1999 (3) SA 615 (C) at 621.
16 Section 9(1) of the Constitution.
17 Cary v Cary 1999 (3) SA 615 (C) at 621.
18 Buttner v Buttner (382/2004) [2005] ZASCA 86; [2006] 1 All SA 429 (SCA); 2006 (3) SA 23 (SCA) (23
September 2005) [24].
Conclusion and costs
[41] The applicant, also, sought costs of this application, including costs of counsel on scale
B. She is partially successful, but the same sentiments expressed above regarding the
apparent financial position of the parties would apply here.
[42] Therefore, I consider an appropriate costs order to make under the circumstances to be
that costs of this application be costs in the divorce ac tion. The Court, when disposing of the
divorce action at a later stage in the absence of an amicable settlement of the issues between
the parties, would be better placed to direct as to the overall liability for costs.
Order
[43] In the premises, I make the order, that:
1. The respondent, pendente lite, is liabl e to pay the amount of R 1 500 (one
thousand five hundred rand) per month per child in respect of maintenance of
the two minor children.
2. The respondent, pendente lite, is liable to pay the minor children’s school fees
and educational expenses in the amount of R 1 2 59.50 (one thousand two
hundred and fifty-nine rand and fifty cents).
3. The respondent, pendente lite, is liabl e to pay the amount of R5 000 ( five
thousand rand) per month in respect of spousal maintenance to the applicant.
4. The amounts in 1, 2 and 3 of this order , totalling R9 259,50, shall be paid
without deduction or set -off and into a bank account nominated by the
applicant. The first payment of all the amounts is to be made to the applicant
on or before 1 May 2026, and subsequently on or before the last day of each
consecutive month thereafter.
5. Both parties, in the interim, shall retain full parental rights and responsibilities
in respect of the minor children, provided that:
5.1 primary residence of the minor children shall continue to vest with the
applicant;
5.2 the specific parental responsibilities and rights with regard to contact with
the minor children, as contemplated in section 18 of the Children's Act 38
of 2005 , is awarded to the respondent, in the following manner (but not
limited thereto):
5.2.1 the respondent's contact with the minor child, Blessing, be in
the following manner (but not limited thereto):
5.2.1.1 every alternative weekend from Friday at 17h00
until Sunday at 17h00;
5.2.1.2 short holidays are alternated between the parties;
5.2.1.3 long school holidays are shared equally by the
parties with Christmas and New Year's Day
rotating between the parties;
5.2.1.4 the minor child should be with the respondent on
Fathers’ Day and the respondent’s birthdays. He
should be with the applicant on Mother s’ Day
and the applicant’s birthdays;
5.2.1.5 the minor child's birthdays to be alternated
between the parties;
5.2.1.6. regular and structural telephone contact be
maintained as agreed to by the parties.
5.2.2. the respondent's contact with the older minor child, N[...], is to
be phased in with the assistance of a social worker or a
therapist rendering bonding therapy, costs of which, if any, to
be paid by the respondent.
6. At this stage, n o contribution by the respondent towards the applicant’s costs
is ordered.
7. The costs of this application shall be costs in the divorce action.
___________________________
Khashane La M. Manamela
Judge of the High Court
Date of Hearing : 23 March 2026
Date of Judgment : 30 March 2026
Appearances:
For the Applicant : Ms R Andrews
Instructed by : RM Bollaert Attorneys, Fourways, JHB
For the Respondent : Mr K Makobe
Instructed by : Legal Aid South Africa, Middleburg
c/o Legal Aid South Africa, Pretoria