B M v S M (29933/2017) [2020] ZAGPJHC 91 (26 March 2020)

B M v S M (29933/2017) [2020] ZAGPJHC 91 (26 March 2020)

The Defendant failed to discharge the onus of proving that the Plaintiff would be unduly benefitted if forfeiture was not granted. No evidence was led regarding the nature and extent of the alleged undue benefit, the value of the pension interest, or the comparative contributions of the parties to the joint estate. The court found that, in the absence of such factual basis, forfeiture could not be ordered. The marriage had irretrievably broken down, and both parties were entitled to an equal division of the joint estate, including their respective pension interests.

Citation
[2020] ZAGPJHC 91
Parties
Plaintiff: B M; Defendant: S M
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 March 2020
Case Number
29933/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Final Judgment
Outcome
Decree of divorce granted; joint estate to be divided equally, including pension interests; forfeiture order refused; each party to pay own costs.
Judges
Senyatsi ML
Legal Topics
Divorce, Forfeiture of Patrimonial Benefits, Division of Joint Estate, Pension Interest
Family and Children Divorce Forfeiture of Patrimonial Benefits Division of Joint Estate Pension Interest

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B M

Plaintiff

S M

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiff should forfeit all patrimonial benefits arising out of the marriage in community of property in favour of the Defendant.
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to division of the joint estate.
  3. 3 The grounds that led to the breakdown of the marriage and the costs of suit.

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant failed to discharge the onus of proving that the Plaintiff would be unduly benefitted if forfeiture was not granted. No evidence was led regarding the nature and extent of the alleged undue benefit, the value of the pension interest, or the comparative contributions of the parties to the joint estate. The court found that, in the absence of such factual basis, forfeiture could not be ordered. The marriage had irretrievably broken down, and both parties were entitled to an equal division of the joint estate, including their respective pension interests.

Court Disposition

Decree of divorce granted; joint estate to be divided equally, including pension interests; forfeiture order refused; each party to pay own costs.

Orders

  • The decree of divorce is granted.
  • The joint estate shall be divided equally between the parties including the parties' respective pension funds.