B v B (1794/2015) [2019] ZAGPPHC 1058 (18 September 2019)

B v B (1794/2015) [2019] ZAGPPHC 1058 (18 September 2019)

The court found no merit in the grounds for leave to appeal. The alleged marriage between the applicant and Mr Visagie was not proven to be valid, and thus the maintenance obligations under the settlement agreement did not lapse. The patent error in the settlement agreement was not properly addressed by Mr Augustyn, who failed to seek amendment or place his version before the court despite being given opportunities. The finding of contempt was upheld as the necessary elements were present. The application for leave to appeal by both the respondent and Mr Augustyn was dismissed, as the court was not persuaded that another court would reach a different conclusion.

Citation
[2019] ZAGPPHC 1058
Parties
Applicant: CH B[….]; Respondent: HJC B[….]; Respondent: Mr Augustyn
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 September 2019
Case Number
1794/2015
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on 25 April 2019
Outcome
Applications for leave to appeal by both the respondent and Mr Augustyn are dismissed with costs.
Judges
Neukircher
Legal Topics
Maintenance Obligations, Validity of Marriage, De Bonis Propriis Costs, Leave to Appeal, Settlement Agreement Error
Family and Children Civil Procedure Maintenance Obligations Validity of Marriage De Bonis Propriis Costs Leave to Appeal Settlement Agreement Error

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CH B[….]

Applicant

HJC B[….]

Respondent

Mr Augustyn

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on 25 April 2019

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Christian ceremony between the applicant and Mr Visagie constituted a valid marriage.
  2. 2 Whether the maintenance obligations under the settlement agreement lapsed due to the alleged remarriage.
  3. 3 Whether the settlement agreement contained a patent error regarding maintenance payments.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found no merit in the grounds for leave to appeal. The alleged marriage between the applicant and Mr Visagie was not proven to be valid, and thus the maintenance obligations under the settlement agreement did not lapse. The patent error in the settlement agreement was not properly addressed by Mr Augustyn, who failed to seek amendment or place his version before the court despite being given opportunities. The finding of contempt was upheld as the necessary elements were present. The application for leave to appeal by both the respondent and Mr Augustyn was dismissed, as the court was not persuaded that another court would reach a different conclusion.

Court Disposition

Applications for leave to appeal by both the respondent and Mr Augustyn are dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal by the respondent is dismissed with costs.
  • The application for leave to appeal by Mr Augustyn is dismissed with costs.