B v B (2016/15453) [2017] ZAGPJHC 335 (17 November 2017)

B v B (2016/15453) [2017] ZAGPJHC 335 (17 November 2017)

The court found that the defendant and Mr J lived together as husband and wife, contributed to a joint household, and maintained an intimate relationship for a period exceeding six months. The evidence of both the defendant and Mr J confirmed the existence of a matrimonial partnership, and the interruptions in their cohabitation were not sufficient to negate the continuous nature of the relationship. The dum casta clause in the settlement agreement was triggered, and the plaintiff's maintenance obligations under clauses 7.1 and 7.2 were terminated. The court held that the real issue was the existence of a matrimonial partnership for the requisite period, not the precise timing of the...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPJHC 335
Parties
Plaintiff: J B; Defendant: D B
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 November 2017
Case Number
2016/15453
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Final Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's maintenance obligations under clauses 7.1 and 7.2 of the settlement agreement are terminated.
Judges
Van der Westhuizen
Legal Topics
Dum Casta Clause, Maintenance Obligation, Settlement Agreement, Cohabitation, Termination of Maintenance
Family and Children Dum Casta Clause Maintenance Obligation Settlement Agreement Cohabitation Termination of Maintenance

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J B

Plaintiff

D B

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant breached clause 7.4 of the settlement agreement by residing with a man in a matrimonial partnership for a period exceeding six months.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's maintenance obligations under clauses 7.1 and 7.2 are terminated as a result of such breach.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant and Mr J lived together as husband and wife, contributed to a joint household, and maintained an intimate relationship for a period exceeding six months. The evidence of both the defendant and Mr J confirmed the existence of a matrimonial partnership, and the interruptions in their cohabitation were not sufficient to negate the continuous nature of the relationship. The dum casta clause in the settlement agreement was triggered, and the plaintiff's maintenance obligations under clauses 7.1 and 7.2 were terminated. The court held that the real issue was the existence of a matrimonial partnership for the requisite period, not the precise timing of the...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's maintenance obligations under clauses 7.1 and 7.2 of the settlement agreement are terminated.

Orders

  • It is declared that the plaintiff’s maintenance obligation as provided in clauses 7.1 and 7.2 of the deed of settlement concluded on 6 September 2005 between the plaintiff and the defendant is terminated.