B.B.Y. v A.A.B.Y. (2022/17297) [2025] ZAGPJHC 747 (25 July 2025)

B.B.Y. v A.A.B.Y. (2022/17297) [2025] ZAGPJHC 747 (25 July 2025)

The court found no evidence that the parties intended enforcement of the settlement agreement to be conditional upon obtaining a Get. The respondent only raised this defence after contempt proceedings commenced, and his conduct did not support the existence of an implied or tacit term. The share transfer clause was not void for impossibility, as the impossibility was subjective and self-created; the respondent failed to follow the shareholders agreement procedure and did not demonstrate objective impossibility. The respondent was in arrears and thus disqualified from seeking a reduction of maintenance. The application to vary the contact regime was dismissed due to lack of a social...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPJHC 747
Parties
Applicant: B[…]-Y[…]: T[…]; Respondent: B[…]-Y[…]: A[…]-A[…]
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 July 2025
Case Number
2022/17297
Procedural Posture
Contempt Application / Final Judgment on Contempt Application and Counterapplication
Outcome
The respondent is declared in contempt of the court order dated 5 August 2022. The counterapplication is dismissed. Each party is to pay their own costs.
Judges
E Raubenheimer
Legal Topics
Maintenance Enforcement, Contempt of Court, Settlement Agreement, Impossibility of Performance, Variation of Contact, Reduction of Maintenance
Family and Children Civil Procedure Maintenance Enforcement Contempt of Court Settlement Agreement Impossibility of Performance Variation of Contact Reduction 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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B[…]-Y[…]: T[…]

Applicant

B[…]-Y[…]: A[…]-A[…]

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt Application / Final Judgment on Contempt Application and Counterapplication

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is in contempt of the court order dated 5 August 2022.
  2. 2 Whether the settlement agreement's enforcement was conditional upon obtaining a Get (Jewish divorce document).
  3. 3 Whether the clause requiring transfer of shares is void due to impossibility of performance.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found no evidence that the parties intended enforcement of the settlement agreement to be conditional upon obtaining a Get. The respondent only raised this defence after contempt proceedings commenced, and his conduct did not support the existence of an implied or tacit term. The share transfer clause was not void for impossibility, as the impossibility was subjective and self-created; the respondent failed to follow the shareholders agreement procedure and did not demonstrate objective impossibility. The respondent was in arrears and thus disqualified from seeking a reduction of maintenance. The application to vary the contact regime was dismissed due to lack of a social...

Court Disposition

The respondent is declared in contempt of the court order dated 5 August 2022. The counterapplication is dismissed. Each party is to pay their own costs.

Orders

  • The respondent is in contempt of the order granted on 5 August 2022.
  • The respondent is committed to imprisonment for 30 days, suspended on condition of full compliance within 30 days, including payment of all arrears.