CaseNotes LogoCaseNotes
  • Home
  • Library
  • Research
  • Discussion Hub
  • Wiki
  • Latin Dictionary
  • Question Bank
  • Settings
S

Student

Student Account

South African Law • Jurisdictional Corpus
HomeLibraryResearchQuestionsSettings
Judicial Precedent
Ask AI

Esnath P.M. Jembere v Big Brian Jembere

CitationHH 04-15, HC 11396/14
JurisdictionZW
Area of Law
Family LawChild Custody
Free account

Get the most out of this judgment

Create a free CaseNotes account to save this case, see how it's cited, get an AI summary, and search 10,000+ SA judgments.

Create free accountor sign in

Facts of the Case

The applicant sought custody of two children from the respondent. The matter was set down as an urgent chamber application. The respondent was properly served in terms of the rules but failed to appear at the hearing scheduled for 2:30pm on 5 January 2015. The court gave the respondent until 3pm to appear, but he did not attend. During the proceedings, the applicant withdrew her application in respect of the older child, Rutendo Belinda Jembere (born 28 June 1996), as she had attained majority status (being over 18 years of age). The applicant continued to seek custody of the younger child, Briana Ruvimbo Jembere (born 8 October 1997).

Legal Issues

  • Whether custody of the minor child Briana Ruvimbo Jembere should be granted to the applicant in the absence of opposition from the respondent
  • Whether issues of custody apply to a child who has attained majority status (over 18 years of age)

Judicial Outcome

The court ordered that pending the return day of the provisional order, custody of Briana Ruvimbo Jembere (born 8 October 1997) be and is hereby granted to the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi

Where a respondent in a custody matter is properly served and fails to appear or oppose the application, the court will grant the applicant's prayer for custody. Custody issues do not apply to children who have attained majority status (18 years of age or older).

Obiter Dicta

The court's observation that it had 'no option' but to grant the order in the absence of opposition suggests a limited discretion when dealing with uncontested custody applications, though the court must still be satisfied that the order is in accordance with the law and the interests of the child.

Legal Significance

This case is of limited precedential significance as it is a procedural custody matter dealt with in the respondent's default. However, it confirms the established principle that custody issues do not apply to children who have attained majority status (18 years of age). It also demonstrates the court's approach to urgent custody applications where the respondent fails to oppose despite proper service.

Practice This Case

Sign up to practise IRAC analysis, issue spotting, and argument building on this case.

Explore More Cases

More Family Law cases

  • Abigail Alfeto v Herbert ChapagutaHH 438-22, HC 11544/18
  • Abigail Chibadura (Nee Mubariki) v David Tongesai ChibaduraHH 264-16, HC 9486/14
  • Abigail Chimanga (Nee Mazvimbakupa) v Delight ChimangaHH16-26, HCH 7814/22
  • Abigail Makono (Nee Billie) v Charles Nyengera Makono and OthersHH 638-25, HCH 2271/25 (Ref HCH 2634/21)
  • Ad Hoc Central Authority for the Republic of South Africa and Another v DM[2024] ZAWCHC 170
  • Agnes Maringa v Wilson Mukandatsama and Director of Housing (City of Gweru)HB 28/19, HC 1424/18
  • Agnes Paradza v Brighton Paradza and OthersHH 214-2011, HC 9439/11
  • Ahmed Raffik Omar v The Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others

More Zimbabwe cases

  • (1) Douglas Tanyanyiwa (2) Douglas Warriors Football Club v Lawrence Bernard GwaradaCivil Appeal No. SC 150/11; Judgment No. SC 79/2014
  • (1) Elias Hwenga (2) Mercy Hwenga (3) Kenneth (4) Prince Nyemba (5) A. P. Phillip and Company (Private) Limited v FBC Bank LimitedJudgment No. SC 36/21, Civil Appeal No. SC 204/16
  • (1) Isador Husaiwevhu (2) Walter Mutowo (3) Fungai Zinyama v (1) UZ-UCSF Collaborative Research Programme (2) Sheriff of Zimbabwe N.O (3) High Court Registrar N.OJudgment No. SC 86/25, Civil Appeal No. SC 302/25
  • (1) Petros Makaza (2) Golden Nhika v The State and (1) Khumbuzo Gumbo (2) Sydney Ndachengedzwa v The StateCCZ 16/17 (Const. Application No. CCZ 5/13 and Const. Application No. CCZ 102/13)
  • 1. Tapera Sengweni v The Law Society of Zimbabwe 2. Augustine Runesu Chizikani v The Law Society of ZimbabweHH 706-19, LPDT 8/18 and LPDT 27/18
  • (1) Tungamirai Madzokere (2) Lazarus Maengahama (3) Stanford Maengahama (4) Phineous Nhatarikwa (5) Stanford Mangwiro (6) Yvonne Musarurwa (7) Rebecca Mafukeni v The State
SC 8/12; Civil Application No. 318/11
  • A. Adam and Company (Private) Limited & 2 Others v Good Living Real Estate (Private) LimitedSC 50/21; Civil Appeal No. SC 351/19
  • A. Adam and Company (Private) Limited and Others v Goodliving Real Estate (Private) LimitedSC 18/21; Civil Appeal No. SC 444/19