Main Issue: Welfare or Social grant or  whether or not  Non - South African citizens (but permanant residents) qualify for a social grant and whether that qualifies as unfair discrimination

Findings: This case concerns an application for an order confirming the constitutional invalidity of certain provisions of the Social Assistance Act 59 of 1992. The challenged sections disqualify persons who are not South African citizens from receiving certain welfare grants. The applicants argued in the High Court that the citizenship requirement infringed their Constitutional rights to equality, social security, and the rights of children. The High Court found for the applicants and struck down the challenged provisions relating to child-support grants, care-dependency grants and old-age grants. In this Court, Mokgoro J, writing for the majority, held that the exclusion of permanent residents from the welfare scheme is not a reasonable way to achieve the realization of the right to social security. Furthermore, the Court held that the exclusion of permanent residents from the scheme is discriminatory and unfair and infringes the right to equality.

Main Issue: Child welfare/ whether or not the company could be liable for negligence

Findings: Child of 11 years climbing pylon supporting high voltage power lines – negligence of Eskom – failure to take reasonable steps to prevent harm to the public – especially children – anti-climbing device inadequate in the circumstances – child attempting to touch glass insulators – shocked –impulsive  behaviour indicative of the absence of delictual capacity.

Main Issue: Custody/ whether or not court has jurisdition to order the return of a child from the USA to South Africa

Findings: This is an application for leave to appeal against para 2 to 5 of an order made in the High Court, Pretoria in terms of which the court a quo awarded the interim custody of the daughter (Kayla) of the applicant and the respondent to the parents of the respondent and ordered that Kayla be returned from the USA to the jurisdiction of the court a quo. The judges who considered the application for leave to appeal, acting in terms of the provisions of s 21(3)(c)(ii) of the Supreme Court Act 59 of 1959, referred the matter to this court for argument and ordered that the parties should be prepared to argue the merits of the appeal should leave to appeal be granted.  The applicant and the respondent were married in 1993.
Jurisdiction – interim custody order inextricably linked to order that child be returned to South Africa – court not able to enforce return order - no jurisdiction to grant such order.

Main Issue: Delict – pregnant woman injured in motor collision – child subsequently born with brain damage resulting from collision – whether child has action against RAF.

Findings: This is an appeal against the dismissal by High Court, of a special plea raised by the appellant against a claim brought by the respondent, in his capacity as father and natural guardian of his minor daughter, Zukhanye Mtati, in terms of Article 40 of the Agreement set out in the schedule to the Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund Act, 93 of 1989. The appellant contends in its special plea that, as the respondent’s minor child was at the time of the collision a foetus in utero, she was not, on what is called a ‘proper construction’ of Article 40, a ‘person’ entitled  to compensation. But on the date of its birth the claim for future maintenance based on its expectation of life would have lain and there seems no difference in principle between such a claim and a claim in respect of an unborn but living foetus. Court held that the appeal should be dismissed.

Main Issue: Custody/best interest/ whether applicant can migrate to another country with children

Findings: Although applicant (father) wanted to migrate to Australia with the children, it was held that the best interest of the children outweighed and as they might be (especially the young one) be exposed to pain and trauma without keeping close with the respondent (mother) meant that the application should not be granted and children should remain with father only as long as he stayed in South Africa.

Main Issue: Application by custodian parent of young child for leave to remove child permanently from South Africa – child strongly bonded to both parents – interests of child first and paramount consideration.

Findings: An application by custodian parent of young child for leave to remove child permanently from South Africa to England was made. The courts held that the appellant’s decision to relocate was ill-researched and precipitate and that, in the light of an agreed opinion of experts called by the parties that the child’s interests would be best served by remaining in South Africa, the move would be prejudicial to her emotional and psychological well-being. It was, however, pointed out by the Court that the refusal to grant the appellant leave to relocate with her daughter was not immutable and that, should the circumstances be right, she may well be in a position to obtain such leave in the not too distant future.

Main Issue: Succession/disinheritance/customary law

Findings: The case involved the determination whether the requirements of a valid act of disinheritance had been fulfilled. The Court stated that for a valid act of disinheritance, good cause and a report of the disinheritance to the chief must be fulfilled. (By applying the principles of succession in African customary law) And, the Court held, although there was hostility between the deceased and the son, which can tantamount to good cause, there is no evidence that it has been communicated to the local chief and there is no valid disinheritance.

Main Issue: Succession/disinheritance/customary law/ right to inheritance of an illegitimate child (daughter)/discrimination/ challenging the rule of primogeniture as discriminatory on the basis of sex and race as it only applied against black women/girls

Findings: The Appellant and the deceased were cohabiting before his death and a child, Thembi, was born. As a result, Thembi was left without inheriting anything. The Applicant brought an application for an order, inter alia, declaring the customary law of primogeniture, which generally excluded African women from intestate succession and Regulation 2 of the regulations for the Administration of Estates of Deceased Blacks as inconsistent with the Constitution. Court held that Thembi was illegitmate because there must be marriage (customary union) in order for a child to be transferred into its father's family and set aside the argument of the applicant that she was not illegitimate. The Court also held that only a son born during the subsistence of a customary union between his mother and the deceased could succeed to the head of the household if there were no other male descendants and the argument that because the law recognizes the right of an illegitimate son, but not an illegitimate daughter to succeed to the intestate estate of a deceased is incorrect. It was also held that the existing law enabled black persons to avoid the application of customary law by drafting a will and accordingly if they took no steps to alter the devolution of their estates, the resulting consequence could not be assumed to be contrary to their wishes and as the wish of the deceased is of paramount importance in our law, it could not be see how a regulation respecting that right is unreasonable and untra vires in common law. Court dismissed appellant's argument.

Main Issue: Loss of support by death of parents/calculation of damage to be paid to minor

Findings: A loss of support claim against the appellant was brought on behalf of a minor child arising from a motor vehicle accident in which the child’s parents were killed. Although the matter involved the application, on behalf of a minor child, for the calculation of damage to be paid as a result of the death of parents by a car accident, the case revolved more around procedural matters on the appeallablity of the issue to this Court or not.

Main Issue: Locus standi in ludicio/minor/representation

Findings: Regarding the locus standi in ludicio of a minor, Court confirmed that a guardian who allows the minor to continue a legal action in the case where the locus standi was initially lacking, tacitly and retrospectively ratifies the entire action without requiring recourse to the amendment of pleadings.

Main Issue: Custody/ and the relevance of the best interest of the child as well as the availability of a social worker report

Findings: In an application for interim custody, Court highlighted that it is generally reluctant to upset status quo concerning custody of minor children, this rule being subject to the consideration that the paramount interest of the children must prevail. Further, in deciding issue, court having regard to report of social worker. Best interest of the child.

Main Issue: Custody disputes and a request of order to oblige respondent to share in the cost 

Findings: Court held that generally a successful litigant is entitled to costs. No matter how bona fide and concerned a party may be, it is unfair that a person who is drawn into litigation and who successfully resists it should have to pay the cost of being involved. The Court dismissed the application saying that both parties bear their own costs.

Main Issue: Maintenance grant for a child while it has been abolished and replaced by a child support grant

Findings: Applicant complained that her application for a maintenance grant was not processed by the respondents. However, the receipt given to the applicant when she made her application referred to a child support grant and not a maintenance grant. The Court therefore presumed her reference to an application for a maintenance grant as erroneous.  Court dismissed application reasoning that the application is fatally defective as it could not approach the matter on the basis of whether the respondent had defaulted in not processing a child support grant because such a cause of action had not been placed before the Court.

Main Issue: Social grant/administrative law

Findings: Applicant applied for a maintenance grant in 1996 for her daughter. She was informed that application was successful in 2000. In the present application, she sought to claim back pay from the date of her application in 1996, to her first payment in 2000.  Court held that applicant has misconstrued her remedy in seeking to review the delay in processing her application while she should have sued for “back pay” once her grant was approved. ON the basis of this reasoning, application was dismissed.

Main Issue: Custody and guardianship

Findings: Mother applied to have sole custody. Court held that, in the circumstances, it was in the best interest of the child that the advocate be joined as the boy’s legal representative and that the father’s access and the question of sole guardianship and custody are suspended pending the father undergoing psychological assessment and evaluation. Best interest of the child.