Kotze v Kotze

JudgeFabricius AJ
Judgment Date11 February 2003
Citation2003 (3) SA 628 (T)
Docket Number28933/2002
Hearing Date22 November 2002
CounselNo appearance for either the plaintiff or defendant.
CourtTransvaal Provincial Division

Fabricius AJ:

This is an unopposed divorce action. I dissolved the marriage on 22 November 2002 and made a settlement agreement between the parties an order of Court, but refused to sanction a paragraph contained therein relating to a minor D child (at that time almost three years old), which in translation read as follows:

'Both parties undertake to educate the minor child in the Apostolic Church and undertake that he will fully participate in all the religious activities of the Apostolic Church.' E

My reasons follow:

The paragraph not only imposes reciprocal obligations on the parties, but also imposes a duty on the minor child to engage fully in the religious activities of a particular church.

It is obvious that the child had no say in the matter, and would most F likely have no say in the future until he was intellectually and emotionally able to make an informed choice, if indeed such free choice would then be open to him without constraints such as fear, guilt and self-doubt, having regard to whatever dogma he had been subjected to in the mean time.

When I refer to 'dogma' I do not refer to any particular dogma of the Apostolic Church or any other Church. I refer to the Christian G religion with all its characteristics. My reasons, however, in this particular context, apply to religion as a whole, and to all denominations and creeds. By 'religion' I refer to the human recognition of superhuman controlling power, and especially of a personal god or gods entitled to obedience and worship. See H Wittmann v Deutscher Schulverein, Pretoria, and Others 1998 (4) SA 423 (T) at 449A. 'Religious activities' are those practices, observances, rituals and rites which pertain either generally or particularly to any religion that recognises, obeys and worships a personal god or gods. It is, of course, impossible to provide a definitive all-embracing definition of 'religion' or 'religious beliefs' or 'religious activities' in the light of the diversity in this context, and developments in theology, and always considering the particular believer's perspectives. For present purposes however, this is not necessary, over and above the concept of a believer's recognition of an upper human controlling power. For an interesting debate on this

Fabricius AJ

topic see Lawrence H Tribe American Constitutional Law 2nd ed at para 14-6. A

According to s 28(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 108 of 1996, a child's best interests are of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child. 'Child' means a person under the age of 18 years. B

Section 15 of the Constitution provides that everyone has the right to freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief and opinion.

It is also significant that, in the context of State or State-aided institutions, religious observances may be conducted, provided that attendance of them is free and voluntary. The Apostolic Church is not a State or State-aided institution to my knowledge...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 practice notes
  • H v Fetal Assessment Centre
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...2005 (6) SA 419 (CC) (2005 (9) BCLR 835; [2005] 8 BLLR 749; [2005] ZACC 8): dictum in paras [34] – [35] applied H Kotze v Kotze 2003 (3) SA 628 (T): referred Law Society of South Africa and Others v Minister for Transport and Another I 2011 (1) SA 400 (CC) (2011 (2) BCLR 150; [2010] ZACC 25......
  • “Wrongful Life” – The Constitutional Court Paved the Way for Law Reform
    • South Africa
    • Juta Stellenbosch Law Review No. , May 2019
    • May 27, 2019
    ...with in herent worth despite 87 Para 45.88 Section 28. See al so para 46.89 Par a 47.90 Para 64.91 Quoting f rom Kotze v Kotze 2003 3 SA 628 (T) 630 G which was endorsed by t he Constitution al Court in Mpofu v Ministe r of Justice and Cons titutional De velopment 2013 9 BCLR 1072 (CC).92 P......
  • Taylor v Kurtstag NO and Others
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...v Argus Newspapers Ltd 1996 (2) SA 588 (W) (1996 (6) BCLR 836): compared Jones v Wolf 443 US 595 (1979): referred to B Kotze v Kotze 2003 (3) SA 628 (T): referred to Lakeside Colony of Hutterian Brethren v Hofer [1992] 3 SCR 165 : referred to Law Society of the Transvaal v Tloubatla 1999 (1......
  • PL v YL
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...G Karson v Minister of Public Works 1996 (1) SA 887 (E): referred to Keshavjee v Ismail 1956 (4) SA 90 (T): referred to Kotze v Kotze 2003 (3) SA 628 (T): referred to Maartens v Maartens 1964 (2) SA 104 (N): not followed Mansell v Mansell 1953 (3) SA 716 (N): discussed and not followed H Mc......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • H v Fetal Assessment Centre
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...2005 (6) SA 419 (CC) (2005 (9) BCLR 835; [2005] 8 BLLR 749; [2005] ZACC 8): dictum in paras [34] – [35] applied H Kotze v Kotze 2003 (3) SA 628 (T): referred Law Society of South Africa and Others v Minister for Transport and Another I 2011 (1) SA 400 (CC) (2011 (2) BCLR 150; [2010] ZACC 25......
  • Taylor v Kurtstag NO and Others
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...v Argus Newspapers Ltd 1996 (2) SA 588 (W) (1996 (6) BCLR 836): compared Jones v Wolf 443 US 595 (1979): referred to B Kotze v Kotze 2003 (3) SA 628 (T): referred to Lakeside Colony of Hutterian Brethren v Hofer [1992] 3 SCR 165 : referred to Law Society of the Transvaal v Tloubatla 1999 (1......
  • PL v YL
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...G Karson v Minister of Public Works 1996 (1) SA 887 (E): referred to Keshavjee v Ismail 1956 (4) SA 90 (T): referred to Kotze v Kotze 2003 (3) SA 628 (T): referred to Maartens v Maartens 1964 (2) SA 104 (N): not followed Mansell v Mansell 1953 (3) SA 716 (N): discussed and not followed H Mc......
  • Women's Legal Centre Trust v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...ZACC 3) : referred to Kader v Kader 1972 (3) SA 203 (RA): referred to Khan v Khan 2005 (2) SA 272 (T): considered Kotze v Kotze J 2003 (3) SA 628 (T): referred to 2018 (6) SA p601 Masiya v Director of Public Prosecutions, Pretoria and Another (Centre for Applied Legal Studies and Another, A......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT