03/10/2026 Bertus Preller Best Interests of the Child, Children, Constitutional Court customary law, Customary Law, Customary Marriages, gender equality, Imbeleko, Recognition of Customary Marriages Act 120 of 1998, section 211(3), section 9 Constitution, Ulwaluko, Umgidi, Umngeno, Xhosa initiation age of majority, Attorney and Client Costs, Bhe case, co-holder consultation, customary law and Constitution, declaratory order, dependent adult child, final interdict, Gender Equality, Imbeleko, living customary law, Mbungela, MM v MN, parental responsibilities and rights, rule 6(12) urgency, section 18 Children's Act, section 211(3), Section 31 Children's Act, section 9 Constitution, Self-Created Urgency, Setlogelo, Shilubana, standing of parent, Superior Courts Act, Ulwaluko, Umgidi, Umngeno, Xhosa initiation, Z v Z A Mother’s Place at the Umgidi: Living Customary Law, Gender Equality and the Myth of the Magic Age of 18 — S.Z.Z v S.Z (2026/196397) [2026] ZAGPJHC 1099 (25 September 2026). The Facts: A Mother Excluded from Her Son's Rite of Passage In S.Z.Z v S.Z (2026/196397) ZAGPJHC 1099 (25 September 2026) a divorced mother approached the Gauteng Division, Johannesburg, on… READ MORE
21/09/2026 Bertus Preller Alimony, Appeal, Appealability, Costs, Costs de bonis propriis, Divorce, Leave to appeal Superior Courts Act, Maintenance Court, Pendente Lite, Rule 43 Appeal, Rule 43 Contempt, Rule 43 Cost Contributions, Rule 43 orders, Spousal Maintenance AF v MF, AG v LG, Attorney and Client Costs, BE v NT SCA, contribution towards costs, costs de bonis propriis, curator ad litem, Dicker NO v SJVDW, EB v CB Free State, family law South Africa, hopeless application costs, interim relief divorce, leave to appeal Rule 43, maintenance pendente lite, Pangarker J, past legal costs Rule 43, postponement Rule 43, Practice Directive 45B, refusal of postponement appealable, RM v AM, Rule 43, Rule 43 appeal, Rule 43(1)(b), Rule 43(6) variation, Rule 58 Magistrates Court, S v S Constitutional Court, section 16(3) Superior Courts Act, section 173 Constitution, Western Cape High Court Rule 43 Orders Cannot Be Appealed, and Persisting Costs the Attorney: Dicker NO v S.J.V.D.W (Leave to Appeal) (2026/006447) [2026] ZAWCHC 482 (7 September 2026). The Western Cape Division has once again been called upon to restate what ought by now to be trite in every family law practice in the country: orders granted in… READ MORE
25/06/2026 Bertus Preller Alimony, Arrear Maintenance, Arrear maintenance claims, Child Maintenance, Children, Civil contempt South Africa, Contempt of Court, Contempt of court maintenance, Divorce, Financial non-disclosure, Maintenance, Maintenance Court, Maintenance Court, Maintenance order enforcement, Non-disclosure consequences, Plascon Evans Rule, Post-divorce maintenance, Post-divorce maintenance enforcement, Spousal Maintenance, Uberrimae fidei matrimonial proceedings Arrear Maintenance, Attorney and Client Costs, beyond reasonable doubt, child maintenance, Civil Contempt, contempt of court, Contempt Proceedings, Davis AJ, Dezius v Dezius, Divorce Act, dolus eventualis, Eke v Parsons, evidential burden, Fakie v CCII Systems, family law South Africa, financial disclosure, full and frank disclosure, inability to pay defence, luxuries non-essentials, maintenance court variation, maintenance debtor, Maintenance Order, parental maintenance obligations, Pheko v Ekurhuleni, Plascon-Evans rule, poverty defence, settlement agreement order of court, Western Cape High Court, wilful and mala fide When “I Can’t Pay” Becomes Contempt: Luxuries, Maintenance Arrears and the Duty of Full Disclosure in D.W v J.L.K (12604/2015) [2026] ZAWCHC 322 (17 June 2026). D.W v J.L.K (12604/2015) ZAWCHC 322 (17 June 2026) The facts: a maintenance debtor who paid for luxuries before his children The applicant and respondent divorced in 2015. In terms… READ MORE
16/12/2025 Bertus Preller Abuse of Process, Access to justice section 34, Attorney and client costs, Bona fide defence, Civil contempt South Africa, Contempt of Court, Contempt of court maintenance, Contumacious conduct, Costs, Discovery, Divorce, Duty to court, Good cause rescission, Hostile Family Lawyers, Inherent powers of court, Legal practitioner complicity, legal practitioner ethical duties, LPC Code of Conduct, Matrimonial proceedings discovery, Muslim Marriages, Procedural Law, Procedural non-compliance, Procedure, Punitive costs orders, Rescission of default judgment, Rule 35(1) discovery, Rule 35(3) notice, Rule 35(7), Section 173 Constitution, Serial contempt, Stalingrad tactics, Striking out defence, Uniform Form Rules of Court, Vexatious Litigant, Vexatious litigation, Vindicating court authority abuse of court process, Attorney and Client Costs, bona fide defence, chamber book applications, contempt of court, contumacious conduct, discovery obligations, divorce action, duty to court, family law litigation, good cause rescission, inherent powers of court, legal practitioner complicity, legal practitioner ethical duties, LPC Code of Conduct, maintenance claims, procedural non-compliance, punitive costs orders, rescission of default judgment, Rule 35(3) notice, Rule 35(7), section 173 Constitution, section 60.1, section 60.2, serial contempt, Stalingrad tactics, striking out defence, vindicating court authority, wilful default When the Court Draws a Line in the Sand: Striking Out for Serial Contempt and Abuse of Process in S.L v A.C (8030/2021) [2025] ZAWCHC 565 (4 December 2025). Introduction The case of S.L v A.C (8030/2021) ZAWCHC 565 (4 December 2025) serves as a stark reminder that access to justice does not mean access to courts on one's… READ MORE
08/12/2025 Bertus Preller Accrual system, Clean Break Principle, Cohabitation, Costs, Direct financial contributions, Division of Estate, Divorce, Divorce Act 70 of 1979, EB v ER Constitutional Court, Equitable redistribution, Marriage, Marriage equality, matrimonial asset division, Out of community of property, Procedure, Punitive Cost Orders, Redistribution Claim, Rehabilitative maintenance, Section 7(2) maintenance, Section 7(3) Divorce Act, Section 7(4) contributions, Universal Partnership accrual system, antenuptial contract without accrual, Attorney and Client Costs, Beaumont v Beaumont, clean break principle, cohabitation before marriage, direct financial contributions, domestic partnership, EB v ER Constitutional Court, equitable redistribution, estate valuation disputes, family law redistribution, full court binding precedent, household duties, indirect contributions to estate, matrimonial asset division, Matrimonial Property Regime, out of community of property, Ponelat v Schrephfer, post-separation conduct, redistribution claims, rehabilitative maintenance, section 7(2) maintenance, section 7(3) Divorce Act, section 7(4) contributions, South African divorce law, spousal maintenance, trust asset disclosure, universal partnership Beyond Marriage: 30 Years, 40% Redistribution and the Universal Partnership Principle – E.L.M v L.M (9360/2022P) [2025] ZAKZPHC 127 (5 December 2025). Facts and Matrimonial Background: A 30-Year Relationship The parties in this matter were married out of community of property without the accrual system on 27 March 1999, following a six-year… READ MORE
23/01/2024 Bertus Preller Arrears, Children, Contempt of Court, Divorce, Guardianship, Maintenance, Marriage, Parental Rights Adherence to Court Orders, Attorney and Client Costs, Child's Welfare, Child's Best Interests, Children’s Act 38 of 2005, Constitutional Violation, Contact rights, Contempt of Court Orders, Court Directives, Custodial Sentence, Emotional Strain, Gauteng High Court, Justice Phahlane, Legal Practitioners' Duty, Legal Recourse, Legal System Integrity, maintenance obligations, minor child, Mosopa Order, non-compliance, Parental Responsibilities, Parental Rights, Psychological Impact, Repeated Defiance, Rule of Law, Separation, South African Legal Framework, Urgent Application, Voster Order Justice Prevails: A Landmark Twelve-Month Sentence Upholding the Child’s Best Interests. – B.M.G.S v M.B.S and Others (26675/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 24 (8 January 2024). Introduction In this case presided over by Justice Phahlane, the applicant, Mr. S, approached the Gauteng High Court on an urgent basis. The case centred around the contempt of two… READ MORE