Advocate Muhammad Abduroaf – Best Top Cape Town South Africa Posted on 11 February 2025 by TelelawAdvocate Muhammad Abduroaf – Best Top Cape Town South Africa
Claiming Child Maintenance from Grandparents – What does the law say? Many people are of the view that child maintenance may only be claimed by the parents of a child. They have that view even in the case where the parents cannot afford to maintain the child, but the grandparents can. At the outset, we state that the latter view is incorrect. If parents cannot afford to maintain a child, a claim for maintenance may be made against both the paternal and maternal grandparents of the child involved. This applies whether or not the child was born in or out of wedlock. Prior to 2004, or before the case of Petersen v Maintenance Officer, Simon’s Town Maintenance Court, and Others 2004 (2) SA 56 (C), the law allowed parents to claim maintenance for their minor children from maternal and paternal grandparents, as long as the child was born within wedlock, or out of a marriage. If the child was born out of wedlock, then in such a case, the parent could only claim from the maternal grandparents. And not the paternal grandparents. This was clearly unfair and unconstitutional and something that many people would have issues with. In 2004, Adv. Muhammad Abduroaf had a client who wanted to claim maintenance from the maternal grandparents of her minor child, but the law did not allow for it. He and his client was not happy with the legal position and took the matter to the Western Cape High Court (the Provisional Division of the Cape). Adv. Abduroaf cited the Maintenance Office of Simon’s Town Maintenance Court and the paternal grandparents. The matter was argued, and the Court found in favour of Adv. Muhammad Abduroaf and his client. The case opened many doors for mothers in similar positions. Below we discuss the case. Due to Adv. Muhammad Abduroaf’s academic background in Constitutional law and willingness to fight for his client, he challenged the legal position.Petersen v Maintenance Officer, Simon’s Town Maintenance Court, and Others2004 (2) SA 56 (C) The well-known case of Petersen v Maintenance Officer, Simon’s Town Maintenance Court, and Others 2004 (2) SA 56 (C) was a special one. Not because Adv. Abduroaf and his client were successful, but the effect of the case meant that children who could never claim maintenance from paternal grandparents if they were born out of wedlock could do so due to the case. The case also brought about widespread attention to the fact that a parent can claim maintenance from grandparents when the parents cannot afford to support the child on their own.The following is extracted from the case of Petersen v Maintenance Officer, Simon’s Town Maintenance Court, and Others 2004 (2) SA 56 (C) : [6] The Motan decision is generally accepted as authority for the assertion that the paternal grandparents of an extramarital child do not owe a duty of support to the child. The interpretation of the common law in Motan and the resultant denial of a duty of support by the paternal grandparents of an E extra-marital child has, even prior to the present constitutional dispensation, been widely criticised by South African writers. Van den Heever Breach of Promise and Seduction in South African Law (1954) at 70 says the following: ‘It is submitted that the decision is so patently wrong that it should be reconsidered; for it is based on legislative considerations and methods, which are, moreover, unsound. It is contrary to public policy and humanity and should, if necessary, be rectified by the Legislature.’This is what Adv. Abduroaf argued: [7] Mr Abduroaf, who appears for the applicant, submitted that the common-law rule as interpreted in Motan, violates the extra-marital child’s constitutional rights to equality and dignity enshrined in ss 9 and 10 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 108 of 1996 (the Constitution) and is contrary to the best interest of the child (see s 28(2) of the Constitution). He accordingly submits that the common-law rule is unreasonable and unjustifiable and should be declared unconstitutional and invalid. Adv. Abduroaf further submitted: [14] Mr Abduroaf submitted that the constitutional values embodied in ss 9, 10 and 28(2) of the Constitution, dictate that the common-law rule as enunciated in Motan, be developed by imposing a duty of support upon the paternal grandparents of an extra-marital child in the event of the natural parents of such child being unable to support the child. The said sections of the Constitution provide: ‘9 (1) Everyone is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law. (2) Equality includes the full and equal enjoyment of all rights and freedoms. To promote the achievement of equality, legislative and other measures designed to protect or advance persons, or categories of persons, disadvantaged by unfair discrimination may be taken. (3) The State may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth. (4) No person may unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds in terms of ss (3). National legislation must be enacted to prevent or prohibit unfair discrimination. (5) Discrimination on one or more of the grounds listed in ss (3) is unfair unless it is established that the discrimination is fair. 10 Everyone has inherent dignity and the right to have their dignity respected and protected. . . . 28 (2) A child’s best interest is of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child.’ The Ruling in Petersen v Maintenance Officer, Simon’s Town Maintenance Court, and Others 2004 (2) SA 56 (C) At the end of the matter, the Court made the following ruling: [29] In the result I make the following order:It is declared that the second and third respondents have a legal duty to support the extra-marital child of the applicant, J, born on 7 January 2003, to the same extent to which the fourth and fifth respondents are liable to maintain the said child.The first respondent is directed to take the necessary steps for an enquiry to be held in terms of s 10 of the Maintenance Act 99 of 1998, with a view to enquiring into the provision of maintenance by the second and third respondents for the said extra-marital child of the applicant.No order as to costs is made. Petersen v Maintenance Officer, Simon’s Town Maintenance Court, and Others 2004 (2) SA 56 (C) [caption id="attachment_10745" align="alignnone" width="300"] Adv. Muhammad Abduroaf[/caption] Posted on 11 February 2025 by Telelaw
Advocate Muhammad Abduroaf litigating through video conferencing Posted on 11 February 2025 by Telelaw
Best advice on finding a top divorce lawyer for your divorce case in Hout Bay, Cape Town Do you live in Hout Bay, and are you considering divorcing your spouse? Or have you been threatened with divorce? Either way, a divorce is a legal matter, and it is best to find sound legal advice or assistance. Furthermore, divorcing someone has potential severe legal consequences you may not know of. The first consequence, of course, is that you are no longer married to your former spouse, and there is no legal obligation to maintain each other (unless you qualify for alimony). You may also not inherit from your former spouse’s intestate. Lastly, and obviously, you are free to marry someone else. However, do you know of the proprietary (property) consequences of getting a divorce? What about the assets and debt you and your spouse incurred in Hout Bay or elsewhere during your marriage? Do you know what should happen to it? If not, it is best you find out about these critical aspects and others before getting divorced. Then there is the issue of parental responsibilities and rights after the divorce should there be minor children involved. This article aims to provide guidance on finding the best attorney or advocate for your divorce matter that can adequately and properly advise you or handle your divorce. The advice would apply whether you live in Hout Bay or anywhere else in South Africa. The issues we shall deal with are the following.Gender of the Advocate or attorney;Location of the Advocate or attorney;Experience of the Advocate or attorney;Costs of the Advocate or Attorney; andThe personality of the Advocate or Attorney.What is the best gender of the Advocate or Attorney I need to use for my divorce? Is a male or female better? Generally, the gender of your Advocate or Attorney should not play a role at all in a legal matter. However, depending on your background and the issues involved in your divorce, you may prefer a specific gender where you may feel more comfortable. A female who has been emotionally, physically and psychologically abused may be more comfortable with a female Attorney or Advocate. However, the same female client may prefer a male Advocate or Attorney. No more will be said on this issue.What is the ideal office location of the Advocate or attorney? Does it have to be in Hout Bay? The location or office of your attorney or Advocate is essential if you wish to consult with them in person. It is also ideal, but not necessary, for their offices to be close to the Court where the divorce would be handled. However, many lawyers make use of correspondent lawyers for this purpose. Furthermore, location should not be an issue if you want a specific lawyer to handle your case. This is so especially seeing that people are making use of virtual meetings.What level of experience should the Advocate or attorney have? It is important to remember that not all legal matters require the best lawyer. If your divorce is straightforward, finding the best lawyer in the field is unnecessary. The best may be very busy and lack the time to give your case the attention it deserves. However, if your matter is complicated, then in that case, the most experienced and best lawyer out there is not warranted.What about the Costs of an Attorney or Advocate? For many, the costs of the Attorney or Advocate are the most crucial consideration when it comes to enlisting their services. Usually, the more experienced the Attorney or Advocate, the more they would charge. Another aspect that affects costs is the nature of the expertise of the Advocate or Attorney. If the issues in your matter are highly technical and complicated, an Advocate or Attorney with expertise and experience may charge more.What about the personality of the Advocate or Attorney? Many may discard the Advocate or Attorney’s personality as not important. However, it is essential to note that it may be time to change lawyers if you do not get along well with the Advocate or Attorney because of their personality. A lawyer and their client would develop a professional relationship in family law matters. This is especially so when the lawyer must discuss many personal issues regarding you, your marriage, children, finance, spouse etc. If you cannot get along well with your Attorney or Advocate, you may not divulge important information relevant to your case.What is our best advice to a client looking for an Advocate or Attorney in a divorce matter? Considering all the factors mentioned above, before enlisting the services of an Advocate or Attorney, ensure you enlist the right one. Do not look for the most experience or best, or the top one in family law. You may have to change lawyers if you do so and cannot afford legal bills. Therefore consider the above and any other factors that you may consider necessary when deciding on enlisting the services of an Advocate or an Attorney. Best of luck. Posted on 11 February 2025 by Telelaw
Adv. Muhammad Abduroaf[/caption]