Myburgh Attorneys Inc

Myburgh Attorneys Inc The firms expanding client base serves as proof of our commitment to excellence. In every matter we apply the highest standard of ethical norms and principles.
(1)

Myburgh Attorneys Incorporated is a boutique firm that has been in existence since 1 August 1999, previously trading as a sole proprietorship called Myburgh & Associates Attorneys. The firm's level of service and efficiency has repeatedly proven that the interests of clients are paramount and that the value added service offered to our clients' business and personal interests are of utmost importa

nce. At Myburgh Incorporated we pride ourselves in setting ourselves apart from other legal firms in that we actively strive to serve each and every client with the highest standard of competence possible. Our largest client component is derived as a result of word of mouth referrals wherefrom we secure our local, national and international client base. In so doing we have built up a sound reputation within the legal fraternity. The firm is secure in that the majority of the firm’s staff has been with the firm for an extensive period of time. All the staff members are competent and well experienced in their fields of expertise. Each staff member is well versed in the firm’s policies and procedures and committed to ensuring that the highest standards are applied at the firm. We are an inspired, structured, motivated and outgoing team who believe that passion, hard work, honesty, integrity and vision is the backbone of being a successful legal firm. Contact Janine Myburgh or Anel de Bruyn at Myburgh Attorneys Inc at (021) 945 4960 / [email protected]. The Firm Prides itself on its experience in fields of

Family Law,
Divorce Matters
MVA Claims
Civil Litigation (High Court and Magistrates Court)
Collections
Drafting of Contracts (Commercial and Marriage)
Criminal Law
Family and Divorce Mediation
Labour Law
Drafting of wills
Estates

04/09/2026

PERSONAL LIABILITY FOR DIRECTOR
South African Alpha SCP, on behalf of Challenger Trade, provided funding to Bonfrut, a fruit exporter. Bonfrut later became indebted to Challenger and was placed in liquidation; the liquidation and distribution account reflected indebtedness of R9,583,692. Alwyn Uys (Uys Junior) was a director of Bonfrut and was involved in financial management, budgeting, creditor payments and administration of the Challenger account. Evidence at a section 417 enquiry showed that funds which should have been applied to Challenger were instead used for suppliers, company expenses and other creditors, while Bonfrut’s financial position deteriorated.

Challenger sought an order under section 424 of the Companies Act 61 of 1973 declaring Uys Junior personally liable for Bonfrut’s debts on the basis that he knowingly participated in carrying on its business recklessly and/or with intent to defraud creditors. The section 417 evidence was admissible in civil proceedings under ordinary evidential principles where the requirements of section 3(1)(c) of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act were satisfied. The enquiry evidence had been given under oath, concerned firsthand knowledge of Bonfrut’s operations, was supported by documentary material and other evidence, and had substantial probative value.

Bonfrut was trading recklessly and Uys Junior knew of and concurred in that conduct. He had access to Bonfrut’s financial systems, could see amounts owing to creditors, was responsible for creditor payments and the Challenger account, calculated and approved payments to Challenger and understood that Challenger was entitled to monies received from offtakers. Financial information demonstrated serious deterioration and payments to preferred creditors while Challenger remained unpaid. A reasonable businessman in Uys Junior’s position would have appreciated that there was no reasonable prospect of Challenger receiving payment when due. His defence that he merely acted on Uys Senior’s instructions was untenable: he was a director in his own right and played a key role in Bonfrut’s financial administration. He remained liable also on the basis of his role as prescribed officer after resigning as director. The requirements for personal liability under section 424 were therefore established. Uys Junior was declared liable for the debts of Bonfrut.

South African Alpha SCP obo Challenger v Uys and Others (20382/2023) [2026] ZAWCHC 459 (31 August 2026)

04/09/2026

DOG BITE CLAIM AND VOLUNTARY ASSUMPTION OF RISK
Mr Bottoman claimed damages after being bitten on the mouth by King, a dog owned by Mr Rossie. Bottoman and the defendants were neighbours. The defendants kept King as a watchdog. Their evidence was that Bottoman had previously approached the boundary wall and attempted to interact with the dogs, causing them to become agitated and bark, and that he had repeatedly been asked to leave the dogs alone. On the day of the incident, video footage showed Bottoman’s body remaining in his own yard while he protruded his head over the boundary wall into the defendants’ yard. King jumped upwards and bit him on the mouth.

Bottoman relied principally on the actio de pauperie, alleging that King had acted contrary to the nature of domesticated dogs. In the alternative, he alleged negligence in the defendants’ failure to confine King adequately and prevent the incident. The defendants admitted ownership and the bite but denied liability, contending that Bottoman’s own conduct had caused the incident.

The actio de pauperie imposes strict liability on the owner of a domesticated animal where the animal acts contra naturam sui generis from inward excitement or vice. Relevant defences include fault by the injured person, provocation or another extrinsic cause, unlawful presence and volenti non fit iniuria. The plaintiff’s counsel argued that the defendants had failed because they had not expressly used the technical language of “provocation”. The Court rejected that approach. The decisive question was whether Bottoman’s conduct constituted an extrinsic cause prompting King’s reaction, not the label attached to it. The video footage and defendants’ evidence were uncontroverted because Bottoman chose not to testify.

Bottoman’s protrusion of his head into the defendants’ yard was the precursor to the bite and constituted the extrinsic conduct that elicited King’s reaction. The first defendant therefore established a defence to the actio de pauperie. Bottoman was also solely negligent: the incident would not have occurred had he refrained from putting his head over the wall, particularly after previous warnings and his knowledge that the dogs became agitated when he approached them. His conduct displayed a high degree of recklessness. He further voluntarily assumed the risk of injury by approaching and leaning into the yard despite knowing the guard dogs’ reaction. His failure to testify justified an adverse inference and left the defendants’ version uncontested. The alternative Aquilian claim also failed because Bottoman led no evidence establishing fault on the defendants’ part. Bottoman’s claim was dismissed with costs.

Bottoman v Rossie and Another (17913/2020) [2026] ZAWCHC 465 (2 September 2026)

04/09/2026

LABOUR – RECUSAL AND ALLEGED BIAS OF ARBITRATOR
Mr Adams, employed by the Department of Trade, applied unsuccessfully for a post in the Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS). He was not shortlisted because DWS considered that his qualifications did not meet the stipulated NQF Level 7 requirements. Adams referred an unfair labour practice dispute to the General Public Service Sectoral Bargaining Council and represented himself at arbitration, while DWS was represented by two legally trained representatives. During the hearing they repeatedly interrupted Adams while he was explaining his case and while giving evidence-in-chief. The arbitrator occasionally cautioned them but largely allowed the interruptions to continue.

Adams applied for the arbitrator’s recusal, alleging that the arbitrator was biased, had effectively become a “third legal opponent”, had failed to protect him as a lay litigant, and had favoured DWS procedurally. The immediate trigger was the arbitrator’s direction that DWS bring a formal application to compel disclosure of Adams’s past performance agreements and assessments.

Most of Adams’s complaints concerning admissibility of evidence, disclosure, the use of another CV and other evidentiary rulings were matters capable of being corrected on review of a final award and did not justify premature intervention. The recusal issue was different because it concerned whether the proceedings had already been tainted so that a fair hearing could no longer reasonably be expected. The transcript showed persistent interruptions by both DWS representatives during Adams’s presentation and evidence-in-chief, often raising matters properly reserved for cross-examination.

The arbitrator did not exercise sufficient control over the hearing. Although he was entitled to conduct the arbitration adversarially and had on occasion cautioned the representatives, the frequency and nature of the interruptions required a firmer response. Allowing two legally trained representatives repeatedly to interject while a self-represented litigant was presenting his case and evidence created a lopsided process. A reasonable litigant could therefore apprehend that the hearing would not be fair. This conclusion did not depend on Adams’s concerns about the prospective disclosure ruling.

The recusal ruling was reviewed and set aside and substituted with a ruling granting Adams’s recusal application. The arbitrator was recused. The dispute was remitted to the bargaining council for a hearing de novo before another arbitrator within 30 calendar days of receipt of the order. No order was made as to costs.

Adams v General Public Service Sectoral Bargaining Council and Others (C382/2023) [2026] ZALCCT 147 (3 September 2026)

03/09/2026

THE LIMITS OF ADVOCACY: COURT ORDERS, CHILD PROTECTION, AND PRACTITIONER RESPONSIBILITY

In M.N v J.E and Another (2025/221659) [2026] ZAWCHC 189, the Western Cape High Court addressed a troubling situation where an urgent return order for a four-year-old child was ignored for weeks. Following a primary care order granted in November 2025, the mother went into hiding with the child, actively evaded authorities, and resided in a Bellville caravan park. She acted on the advice of a lay activist operating under a power of attorney. The child’s location was only uncovered after contempt proceedings were launched in December 2025. This case highlights the dangerous intersection of private activism, judicial authority, and child welfare.

Delivering the judgment, the court reinforced a fundamental principle of South African law: court orders are non-negotiable and remain binding until set aside by a competent court. Dissatisfaction with a ruling never justifies self-help or deliberate defiance. Drawing on established precedent like Fakie NO v CCII Systems and the constitutional supremacy of the rule of law under Section 1(c), the Court stressed that contempt in child-related matters directly threatens the child's stability and undermines judicial authority. Recognizing that the purpose of contempt proceedings is to restore respect for the law rather than merely inflict punishment, the Court imposed a suspended fine on the mother after she showed genuine remorse, severed ties with her lay adviser, and committed to cooperating with child-welfare structures.

The Court took a firm stance against the lay activist, imposing a suspended 30-day prison sentence and ordering her to refund all fees. The judgment highlights the grave dangers of unaccredited individuals offering misguided advice, acting outside professional ethics, and assuming quasi-legal roles. Labelling her conduct obstructive and fuelled by a "fantastical idea of justice," the High Court affirmed that private beliefs, powers of attorney, or protective rhetoric cannot justify hiding children, frustrating Family Advocate investigations, or disobeying court orders.

The ruling underscores legal ethics and attorney accountability. Although the contempt application against the mother's attorney was dismissed over factual disputes regarding wilfulness, the Court strongly criticized his firm’s conduct. He entered an appearance without consulting the client, let an unaccredited person draft court filings under his name, breached Rule 16(4) withdrawal procedures, and levied baseless claims against opposing counsel. Consequently, the High Court referred the matter to the Legal Practice Council, emphasizing direct client consultation and strict oversight.

"Your Trusted Advisor"
Contact us at: (021) 945 - 4960 or [email protected] or capetownattorney.co.za.

Islamic considerations in Mediations and the drafting of Parenting Plans.
02/09/2026

Islamic considerations in Mediations and the drafting of Parenting Plans.

02/09/2026

ZEALOUS ADVOCACY VS. ETHICAL RESTRAINT: WHERE DO FAMILY LAWYERS DRAW THE LINE IN CHILD CARE DISPUTES?

When high-conflict childcare disputes turn into battlegrounds, legal practitioners risk stepping over the boundary between zealous advocacy and harmful over-identification. In South African family law, attorneys who adopt clients’ positions uncritically become proxies for parental animosity rather than objective officers of the court. This over-alignment undermines section 9 of the Children’s Act 38 of 2005, which mandates that the child’s best interests are paramount. While traditional litigation encourages a "win-at-all-costs" mentality, section 6(4) demands a non-confrontational, problem-solving approach. When lawyers mirror a difficult client’s aggression, they exacerbate strife and delay resolution, violating both statutory directives and professional duties.

This destructive dynamic carries severe ethical, relational, and professional consequences. Subordinate to client obligations, a practitioner’s primary duty is to the court and justice. In S.L v A.C, the court affirmed it will not tolerate procedural gamesmanship or tactics that weaponize anger. As Kgomo JP emphasized in Van den Berg v Le Roux, adversarial litigation inherently harms minor children. Turning family disputes into wars of attrition destroys the foundation for co-parenting. Beyond damaging families, attorneys who inflame conflict risk judicial censure, punitive costs orders de bonis propriis, and Legal Practice Council referrals under Rule 60.1.

Comparative jurisprudence from the UK and Australia highlights a global movement away from adversarial excess toward child-centred representation. Voluntary frameworks like the UK’s Resolution Code of Practice bind practitioners to manage conflict, while courts consistently penalize obstructive behavior such as in Re L v M, where bad faith yielded severe cost sanctions. Similarly, Australian courts actively rein in combative cultures; in Simic & Norton, Justice Benjamin criticized solicitors acting as a "postman" for clients' vitriol, referring them to regulatory bodies. These jurisdictions show that effective family advocacy requires systemic safeguards and firm judicial boundary-setting.

To protect vulnerable children, South African family law must pivot from destructive partisanship toward constructive advocacy. The Legal Practice Council Code of Conduct obliges practitioners to ensure equitable outcomes and safeguard the child’s best interests. True zealous representation does not mean acquiescing to spiteful demands; it requires the professional maturity to counsel clients against scorched-earth tactics. A client's long-term interest is never served by destroying their child's emotional stability.

"Your Trusted Advisor"
Contact us at: (021) 945 - 4960 or [email protected] or capetownattorney.co.za.

01/09/2026

DUTY OF SUPPORT (CHILD AND SPOUSAL MAINTENANCE)
Child and spousal maintenance in South Africa form a vital pillar of family law, ensuring that financial support is provided to dependents following a breakdown in family structures or a shift in circumstances. Maintenance reflects a legal obligation where one party is required to support another to whom they owe a duty of care. Parents maintain a statutory and common-law duty toward their children, whereas spouses may bear reciprocal support obligations during marriage and, under specific conditions, post-divorce. This legal framework is anchored in common law, strengthened by statutes like the Maintenance Act 99 of 1998, and underwritten by Section 28 of the Constitution, which guarantees every child the right to basic nutrition, shelter, and care.

The duty of child support arises automatically and is guided strictly by the best interests of the minor. Governed by the Children’s Act 38 of 2005 and the Maintenance Act, both parents must contribute to a child's reasonable living, medical, and educational expenses in proportion to their respective financial means. This obligation is owed directly to the child and cannot be waived or contracted away by parents. As highlighted in CL v ZL [2024] ZAWCHC 325, this duty persists regardless of which parent holds primary care. Furthermore, as affirmed in FCP v STC [2025] ZAWCHC 68, even the termination of broader parental rights does not extinguish a parent's duty to provide financial support. Child maintenance obligations do not automatically end at age 18. If a major child remains financially dependent, such as while studying full-time, parents must continue providing financial support until the child achieves financial self-sufficiency.

While property regimes governed by the Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984 shape the financial positions of parties post-divorce, the Divorce Act 70 of 1979 ensures that no divorce is finalized without adequate provision for minor or dependent children under Section 6. In practice, maintenance calculations balance the child's quantified monthly needs against each parent's relative capacity to pay. Where disputes arise or circumstances change, parties can approach the Magistrate’s Maintenance Court to seek an initial order or request a variation under Section 6 of the Maintenance Act upon showing good cause. To enforce compliance, the law offers strong civil remedies such as salary attachments, asset garnishments, and property ex*****on alongside criminal prosecution under Section 31, credit bureau reporting, and electronic tracing to hold defaulting parents accountable.

South African maintenance law mandates proportional parental support based on a child's best interests, persisting beyond majority if dependent and unaffected by custody or parental rights termination (FCP v STC). While child support is strictly enforced through statutory civil and criminal remedies, spousal support favors a "clean break" and must be formally secured prior to divorce finalization (W.L v W.B.L).

"Your Trusted Advisor"

Contact us at: (021) 945 - 4960 or [email protected] or capetownattorney.co.za.

01/09/2026

Barnabus Xulu’s law firm JG and Xulu is suing Jacob Zuma’s MK Party for R12.5m in unpaid legal fees after the party allegedly defaulted on a settlement agreement to pay off its debt

Address

12/2nd Avenue
Bellville
7530

Opening Hours

Monday 07:30 - 16:00
Tuesday 07:30 - 16:00
Wednesday 07:30 - 16:00
Thursday 07:30 - 16:00
Friday 07:30 - 16:00

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Myburgh Attorneys Inc posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to Myburgh Attorneys Inc:

Shortcuts

Share

Category