B v B (A3015/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 903 (10 November 2022)
- Citation
- [2022] ZAGPJHC 903
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Panel
- Wepener, Van Niewenhuizen
- Case number
- A3015/2021
More details
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Panel
- Wepener, Van Niewenhuizen
- Case number
- A3015/2021
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court held that the determinative issue was the date on which the respondent referred the spousal maintenance claim to the maintenance court, as stipulated in the divorce settlement agreement. The magistrate had not made a finding on this date due to insufficient evidence. The court found that the date of the court stamp may not coincide with the actual referral date, especially given the disruptions caused by COVID-19 regulations. Both parties agreed that further evidence was required. Accordingly, the matter was remitted to the magistrate to receive evidence, either orally or by affidavit, regarding the date of referral. The magistrate must then determine whether the referral occurred within the stipulated period and, if so, consider the merits of the maintenance claim.
Court disposition
Matter remitted to magistrate for further hearing and determination of referral date; costs of appeal are costs in the cause.
Orders
- The matter is remitted to the magistrate for further hearing.
- The magistrate must receive evidence, whether viva voce or by affidavit, regarding the date when the aspect of spousal maintenance was referred to that court by the respondent.
- After receiving this evidence, the magistrate must consider whether the aspect of spousal maintenance was referred to that court before 13 May 2020. If so, the aspect of the respondent’s entitlement to maintenance should be considered on its merits.
- The costs of this appeal are costs in the cause.
02
Material facts
Parties
J [....] J [....] 1 B [....]
Appellant Counsel: G.H. FerrarS [....] J [....] 2 B [....]
Respondent Counsel: S. Kroep03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Court; Point in Limine Regarding Entitlement to Claim Maintenance
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the respondent was entitled to launch a claim for spousal maintenance against the appellant after the divorce settlement agreement.
- 02
Whether the referral to the maintenance court was made within the stipulated 12-month period.
- 03
Whether the date of the court stamp is determinative of the referral date under the settlement agreement.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant argued that the respondent was not entitled to claim spousal maintenance because the application was brought outside the 12-month period stipulated in the divorce settlement agreement. The appellant relied on the court stamp dated 27 May 2020 as evidence that the referral was made after the deadline of 13 May 2020.
- Respondent
- The respondent contended that the referral to the maintenance court was made before 13 May 2020, specifically in April or early May 2020, and that the later court stamp was due to disruptions caused by COVID-19 regulations. The respondent denied that the application was handed in after the deadline and asserted that court personnel could confirm the actual referral date.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Settlement agreement between the parties
Where a settlement agreement stipulates a time period for referral of a maintenance claim, the actual date of referral, not the date of the court stamp, is determinative.
- 02
Section 19 of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013
A court may remit a matter for further evidence if the facts necessary to resolve a dispositive issue are unclear or incomplete.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court held that the determinative issue was the date on which the respondent referred the spousal maintenance claim to the maintenance court, as stipulated in the divorce settlement agreement. The magistrate had not made a finding on this date due to insufficient evidence. The court found that the date of the court stamp may not coincide with the actual referral date, especially given the disruptions caused by COVID-19 regulations. Both parties agreed that further evidence was required. Accordingly, the matter was remitted to the magistrate to receive evidence, either orally or by affidavit, regarding the date of referral. The magistrate must then determine whether the referral occurred within the stipulated period and, if so, consider the merits of the maintenance claim.
Obiter and limits
- The COVID-19 regulations promulgated under the Disaster Management Act 57 of 2002 affected normal court operations and may have delayed administrative processes such as stamping documents.
- The costs of the appeal are to be costs in the cause, pending the outcome of the remitted proceedings.
Court disposition
Matter remitted to magistrate for further hearing and determination of referral date; costs of appeal are costs in the cause.
- The matter is remitted to the magistrate for further hearing.
- The magistrate must receive evidence, whether viva voce or by affidavit, regarding the date when the aspect of spousal maintenance was referred to that court by the respondent.
- After receiving this evidence, the magistrate must consider whether the aspect of spousal maintenance was referred to that court before 13 May 2020. If so, the aspect of the respondent’s entitlement to maintenance should be considered on its merits.
- The costs of this appeal are costs in the cause.
Source and reliance status
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Judgment
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE NUMBER: A3015/2021
REPORTABLE:
NO
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
REVISED:
In the appeal of:
J [....] J [....] 1 B [....]
Appellant
versus
S [....] J [....] 2 B [....]
Respondent
Coram: Wepener J et van Niewenhuizen AJ
Date of hearing: 10th November 2022
Date of Judgment: 10th November 2022
This judgment is made an Order of Court by the Judge whose name is reflected herein, duly stamped by the Registrar of the Court and is submitted electronically to the Parties/their legal representatives by email. The judgment is further uploaded to the electronic file of this matter on Caselines by the Judge his secretary. The date of this Order is deemed to be 10 November 2022.
JUDGMENT
Wepener, J:
[1] This is an appeal against the order of the magistrate of Vereeniging, dismissing a point in limine that the respondent was not entitled to launch a claim for maintenance against the appellant.
[2] When the parties were divorced on 13 May 2019 they concluded a settlement agreement in terms of which it was stipulated that:
‘The aspect regarding spousal maintenance shall be referred to the relevant maintenance court, by either party within 12 months from the date of the granting of the final order of divorce. In the event that neither party approaches the maintenance court for such relief within the period stated in this paragraph, the parties accept that their respective entitlement to lodge a maintenance claim shall fall away.’
[3] The issue that looms large before us is the referral to the maintenance court. During argument before the learned magistrate, the respondent’s legal representative stated that the matter was indeed so referred to the maintenance court before 13 May 2020. He stated that it was referred to court during April or early May 2020 and that there are court personnel who could confirm the date when the matter was first referred to the court. The reason why a court stamp was affixed later to the documents was due to the declaration of the ‘covid-regulations’[1], which hampered usual and general court access. In heads of argument filed before us, it is said by the respondent that it is denied that the application was ‘handed in’ after 13 May 2020.
[4] The issue of the date of the referral to the maintenance court was left undetermined by the magistrate and one assumes that this is due to a lack of evidence. The appellant relied on the court stamp, which was 27 May 2020, for the contention that the application was brought out of time. But the date on which the court stamp was affixed to the document may not coincide with the referral date as stipulated in the deed of settlement. I am of the view that this issue requires further evidence. Both parties agreed that the matter should be remitted.
[5] In the circumstances, and in terms of s 19 of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013, I make the following order:
1. The matter is remitted to the magistrate for further hearing.
2. The magistrate must receive evidence, whether viva voce or by way of affidavit, regarding the date when the aspect of spousal maintenance was referred to that court by the respondent.
3. After receiving this evidence the magistrate must consider whether the aspect of spousal maintenance was referred to that court before 13 May 2020. If so, the aspect of the respondent’s entitlement to maintenance should be considered on its merits.
4. The costs of this appeal are costs in the cause.
W.L. Wepener
Judge of the High Court of South Africa
I agree.
S. Van Niewenhuizen
Acting Judge of the High Court of South Africa
Counsel for the Appellant: G.H. Ferrar
Attorneys for the Appellant: JB Hugo & Cronje Inc.
Counsel for the Respondent: S. Kroep
Attorneys for the Respondent: Wessels & Vorster Inc.
[1] Regulations promulgated under the Disaster Management Act 57 of 2002, which commenced on 27 March 2020.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.