Related Post

Relocation of minor children with a parent. What does the Courts and Family Advocate look at?

Relocating with your minor child where the consent of the other parent is provided is ideal. If consent is not provided, then the Court would need to get involved. This applies to both local (example, provincial relocation) and international (moving abroad). Our High Court often hear applications for relocation of minor children. Sometimes the issues are simple, and other times, less so. However, the ultimate question is whether or not it is in the minor child’s best interest.

High Court getting involved in minor children relocation matters

In the unreported judgment of CG v NG 2015 JDR 0391 (GJ), the Applicant, being the mother, approached the Gauteng High Court for permission to relocate with her minor children from Gauteng to Cape Town. We shall not deal with the history and all the facts of the matter, save for the important principles applied to the relevant facts. In this matter, the Office of the Family Advocate was called upon to provide a report as to the intended relocation. This they did and which the Court considered. That is illustrated in the judgment below.

Extracts of a Judgemnet of the High Court in a Relocation of minor children matter

The following aspects of the judgement would be of benefit:
[22] The ruling on the postponement leaves this court to deal with the only remaining issue between the parties and that is whether or not the Applicant should relocate to Cape Town with the minor children. The law on matters of relocation is clear. The relocation must be in the best interest of the minor children as is prescribed in the Children’s Act No. 38of 2005. In addition, an applicant in the position of the Applicant is at liberty to relocate with minor children provided his or her intention is bona fide and reasonable. The test applies to both relocation within the borders of South Africa and abroad. See Jackson v Jackson 2002 SA 303 (SCA) and B v M 2006 (9) BCLR 1034 (W) to which Counsel for the Applicant referred this court. [23] Accordingly, the following two questions arise: 23.1 Is the proposed relocation in the best interest of the minor children? 23.2 Is the Applicant’s intended move bona fide and reasonable? [24] Whether or not an applicant’s proposed move is bona fide and reasonable should be a factual enquiry. Needless to state therefore that each case must be assessed on its own merits. The Applicant has been living in Johannesburg, xxx, while married to the Respondent and to date she continues to do so. [25] Her relationship with the Respondent has become estranged a result of which she now holds the view that it will benefit her to be next to her family, mother, father brother and sister-in-law all of whom are in the area of Cape Town, xxx. [26] Her family will give her the emotional support that she cannot get in Johannesburg. Furthermore, once the minor children are settled, her mother will give her support by fetching them from school such that she could start looking for employment. [27] As the primary custodian parent of the minor children, her move to Cape Town will of necessity be in their best interest. She does not see herself being separated from them as that will prejudice her relationship with them. Her proposed move to Cape Town is supported by her psychologists, Ms Becker and, Ms Chelvers. [28] The Applicant asserts further that the Respondent whom she describes as ‘exceedingly wealthy’ can still exercise his rights as per the orders of Van Oosten and Victor JJ. She does not foresee any problems whether financially or otherwise for The Respondent to fly to Cape Town to see the children as he does presently in Johannesburg. [29] In response to the Applicant’s averments, the respondent alleges that it will not be possible for him to travel to Cape Town on a weekly or monthly basis as this will necessarily involve increased costs for him. Moreover, it will take him away from his only source of income, his work. [30] The relocation of the minor children means that he will have to seek accommodation in Cape Town, transport and time off work in order to exercise his rights. His ability to generate income will be immensely impaired and that could have devastating repercussions for both the minor children and the Applicant especially as she is unemployed and fully dependent on the monthly maintenance that he pays. [31] The Family Advocate unequivocally recommends that the status quo be maintained because to move the minor children to Cape Town will reverse the stability that has prevailed since the introduction of the increased access by their father. The Applicant herself has agreed that all three minor children like their father and that they cannot wait to visit him. The Family Advocate also alludes to the fact that Gabriel, the eldest of the minor children appears settled with her friends at school. [32] Moving them to Cape Town under these circumstances could upset their routine and bring unnecessary shock to their lives at the time when they are beginning to settle. The Family Advocate is an expert in these kind of matters and he undoubtedly compiled the report with the best interest of the minor children in mind. This court has no reason to doubt the outcome and accordingly adopts it. [33] In the result, the following order is made:
  1. The application is dismissed;
  2. The Applicant is ordered to pay the costs as between attorney and client.
From the above it is clear that the Court looked at various factors, as well as the report of the Office of the Family Advocate.      

Posted on by Telelaw

Is my landlord allowed to evict me and my family during the National Lockdown if we cannot pay our rent? What are my legal rights considering COVID-19?

We are today experiencing day 99 of the South Africa national lockdown. Many people are out of work, and unable to pay their rent, mortgage bonds and so on. COVID-19 came with it a lot of challenges and drastically affected everyone’s lives. During this period, Our Lawyer received many queries regarding the eviction of people from their homes during the national lockdown. As people cannot pay their rent or monthly mortgage bond repayments, eviction is on many people’s minds.

Commercial Rent Defaulters during the National Lockdown

This article does not deal with the eviction from commercial property. For example, it would not apply to you if you are a business owner and cannot afford to pay your commercial rent. Here reference can be made to gyms, fitness centres, nightclubs, and those other businesses specifically prohibited from operating during the lockdown. As well as those businesses which are struggling to survive during the lockdown. In such a case, the current lockdown regulations won’t be of much use. You and your business would be left at the mercy of the court. Nonetheless, we are sure the courts would be sympathetic depending on your specific situation.

The default of mortgage bond payment – Do the Regulations assist?

If you are unable to pay your bond, the bank must first take you to court and ultimately be able to declare your property executable. Once this is done, then the property would be sold at a public auction. If you decided not to leave after the sale, then the new owner would have to consider eviction proceedings. At that point would this article apply to you. Now moving on.

Evictions at the start of the lockdown – What was the law then?

At the start of the lockdown, evictions where prohibited. However, now in alert level 3, things are the same, but not quite. Have a look at this article posted at the start of the lockdown, “Occupants and tenants may not be evicted from their homes during the National Lockdown. This is so even if you are in arrears with your rent or bond, or the lease has been terminated.”

Latest eviction regulations in South Africa – Has things changed?

In terms of the current Disaster Management Act Regulations, eviction orders are to be stayed and suspended until the last day of the alert level 3 period. This only relates to your home or land. The court dealing with the eviction matter may order that the eviction not be stayed and suspended if it decides that it is not just and equitable to do so until the last day of the Alert Level 3 period. However, if the court determines it isn’t just and equitable to suspend the eviction order, it may order that the eviction takes place during level 3. The regulation reads as follows:
  1. (1) Subject to subregulation (2), a person may not be evicted from his or her land or home during the period of Alert Level 3 period.
(2) A competent court may grant an order for the eviction of a person from his or her land or home in terms of the provisions of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act, 1997 (Act No. 62 of 1997) and the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act, 1998 (Act No, 19 of 1998): Provided that an order of eviction may be stayed and suspended until the last day Of the Alert Level 3 period, unless a court decides that it is not just and equitable to stay and suspend the order until the last day of the Alert Level 3 period

Let us summaries: What does this mean to the ordinary tenant when it comes to evictions during the lockdown?

In short, your landlord, or owner of the property may approach the court to have you evicted from your home. However, should the court determine that you are an unlawful occupier of the land or premises, it would grant an eviction order, but make an order that it remains suspended until the end of alert level 3 unless the court decides that it would be just and equitable to order otherwise. Nothing, however, prevents the Minister from extending the eviction prohibition in alert level two or one when the time arrives. We will, however, have to wait and see. Read on to learn more about how evictions work. Evictions from your home must be lawful For an eviction to be lawful, the person evicting you must obtain a court order. Without a court order, the sheriff of the Court cannot remove you from your home. You can, therefore, refuse to vacate your home. During the lockdown, the sheriff of the court cannot remove you, even if he or she comes with a court order. Constitutional provisions regarding evicting people from their homes Section 25 of our Constitution states the following: “25(1) No one may be deprived of property except in terms of law of general application, and no law may permit arbitrary deprivation of property.” Furthermore, section, section 26 (3) of our Constitution states: “No one may be evicted from their home, or have their home demolished, without an order of court made after considering all the relevant circumstances. No legislation may permit arbitrary evictions.” Prevention of Illegal Eviction from Unlawful Occupation of Land Act of 19 of 1998 Therefore, for someone to be evicted, an application must be made to the court. The law applicable is the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from Unlawful Occupation of Land Act of 19 of 1998. It came into effect on 5 June 1998. In it, it lays down the procedure for the eviction of unlawful occupiers. In short, the owner or person in charge of the premises must follow the processes in the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from Unlawful Occupation of Land Act. It entails giving you notice to appear in court to say your say. The court would then decide whether or not you should be evicted after hearing both sides of the story. We are certain that you found the above article useful and interesting. Please consider sharing it on the share buttons below. They include Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, WhatsApp, Gmail and more. Someone may find it useful as well. Should you require business advice or services, feel free to click on these links: Business SA | Private Legal | Envirolaws  
Posted on by Telelaw

Do you require a video legal advice consultation?

Click here and schedule one today!