SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document
in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Case Number: 2023-071722
In the matter between:
C[…] J[…] T[…] (G[…] ) Applicant
and
D[…] M[… ] G[…] Respondent
In re:
D[…] M[… ] G[…] Plaintiff
and
C[…] J[…] T[…] (G[…] ) Defendant
Minor child B G
JUDGMENT
CRUTCHFIELD J
[1] On 6 May 2026 I delivered judgment in an application brought urgently before
me in the family court.
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED: YES
11 May 2026 _________________________
DATE SIGNATURE
2
[2] The orders granted by me arose in terms of the notice of motion in the context
of the application as a whole.
[3] The orders granted in terms of the judgment are interim in nature, pending the
outcome of a report from the office of the family advocate.
[4] The applicant, C […] J[…] G[...], now seeks clarification in terms of rule
42(1)(b), of paragraph [50] 1 of the orders granted by me on 6 May 2024. The
respondent, D[…] M[…] G[… ], opposes the request for clarification and raises
a technical point of failure to comply with rule 30A.
[5] These proceedings concern a child of approximately five years of age. The
respondent’s conduct in raising a technical point in the face of the substantive
issues concerning the child herein, is not to be tolerated.
[6] It is not in the interests of justice to permit this request for clarification in terms
of rule 42(1) (b) to escalate into a full blown opposed application and I do not
intend to allow that to take place. It is in the best interests of the child that t he
orders granted by me on 6 May 2026, be implemented in the terms granted
without further ado.
[7] The orders, set out in paragraph [50] of the judgment, provide as follows:
1. The interim court order issued by the Randburg children’s court
under matter number 14/1/42- 547/2024 in so far as the order
provides for supervised contact between the applicant and the child,
is suspended pending the filing of the Family Advocate’s report.
2. Supervision of the contact between the applicant and the child is
suspended pending the filing of the Family Advocate’s report.
3. The services of the appointed parenting coordinator, Ms Kriel are
suspended pending the filing of the report of the Family Advocate.
4. The Family Advocate’s office is requested to finalise its report in this
matter urgently.
5. There is no order in respect of the costs of the application.
3
[8] In short, the orders mean what they say, being:
a. The primary care position of the child is subject to the outcome of the
investigation and report of the family advocate’s office. The family
advocate is to complete that report urgently.
b. Pending the delivery of the Family Advocate’s report , the contact
currently being exercised between the applicant and the child is not to
be subject to supervision.
[9] There is no order in respect of the costs of the rule 42(1)( b) request for
clarification.
___________________________
CRUTCHFIELD J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
JOHANNESBURG
For the Applicant: Attorney I Vorster instructed by Isa Vorster
Attorneys
For the Respondent: Adv N Riley instructed by Fairbridges
Attorneys
Date of the request in terms of
rule 42(1)(b): 8 May 2026
Date of the judgment: 11 May 2026