In a case that’s rattled South Africa’s legal and reproductive landscapes, the Johannesburg High Court has ordered prominent advocate and acting judge Vuyani Ngalwana SC to pay child support for twins conceived through artificial insemination—despite his claim that he acted solely as a sperm donor.
The judgment, handed down by acting judge Ceri von Ludwig on July 24, 2025, dismissed Ngalwana’s application to be exempted from parental obligations. The court cited South Africa’s Children’s Act, emphasising that the best interests of the child override donor-parent distinctions.
“The relief sought would effectively declare the children fatherless,” von Ludwig said, “and therefore deprive them of all the benefits of that relationship.”
Ngalwana, a senior advocate and outspoken legal commentator, confirmed he is appealing the ruling. “We are appealing the judgment as we believe it is wrong in law. Please deal with my attorneys, not directly with me,” he told Sunday World (original article), referring media to his legal team.
At the heart of the case is a disputed gamete donation agreement, signed when the advocate’s romantic relationship with the children’s mother—a medical doctor and academic—had ended. Ngalwana insists he agreed to help her conceive as a “gesture of affection,” but with firm boundaries.
“The document contemplated donation to an anonymous recipient, and no contact by the donor or any of his family with any child might be conceived,” Ngalwana argued in court, referring to the sperm donor consent form signed at a licensed clinic.
However, the court found the arrangement legally unenforceable, citing insufficient evidence of a binding gamete donor agreement under South Africa’s complex reproductive rights framework.
The mother countered that while their formal relationship ended, they continued seeing each other—and trying for a baby. “He built a relationship with the children to the extent that they know him as their father,” she said in her testimony, adding that he had maintained the twins financially and emotionally until she lost her job. “That’s when he played the sperm donor card.”
Despite Ngalwana’s argument that his willingness to assist was “conditional”, Judge von Ludwig ruled that there was no compelling legal evidence absolving him of parental responsibilities. The court rejected his assertion that he was merely a donor: “The applicant failed to prove the existence of a valid gamete donor agreement.”
Legal experts say the ruling sets a critical precedent in South African family law. It underscores the legal grey areas around sperm donation, especially where informal arrangements, ongoing romantic ties, or post-birth involvement exist.
This isn’t the first time South Africa has made headlines with sperm donor disputes. A similarly bizarre Netflix’s Love Is Blind sperm donor story earlier this year highlighted the murky ethics around reproductive intent and responsibility.
The ripple effects of this judgment could reshape the conduct and documentation required for sperm donations, especially involving known donors. As artificial fertilisation becomes more common in South Africa, legal experts urge that such arrangements strictly comply with the National Health Act’s regulations ro avoid costly and traumatic disputes.
For unfolding top South African news stories as and when they happen live across the country, visit: NOWinSA News
