B.H v C.T.M (A54 / 2020) [2022] ZAMPMBHC 8 (18 February 2022)

B.H v C.T.M (A54 / 2020) [2022] ZAMPMBHC 8 (18 February 2022)

The court held that the pension interest forms part of the joint estate in a marriage in community of property, and there was no legal basis for limiting the calculation of pension interest to the date of marriage unless a forfeiture of benefits order was properly pleaded and considered. The trial court misdirected itself by making such an order without any claim for forfeiture or consideration of the statutory factors. The appellant was denied her rightful share, and the appeal was upheld. The correct order is that the pension interest held by the respondent under the specified pension number with the Government Employees Pension Fund, calculated up to the date of divorce, must be paid...

Citation
[2022] ZAMPMBHC 8
Parties
Appellant: B[....] H[....]; Respondent: C[....] T[....] M[....]
Court
Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 February 2022
Case Number
A54 / 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Regional Court Divorce Order
Outcome
Appeal upheld with costs. Paragraph 4 of the order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced.
Judges
TV Ratshibvumo, MF Legodi
Legal Topics
Division of Pension Interest, Customary Marriage, Forfeiture of Benefits, Community of Property
Family and Children Civil Procedure Division of Pension Interest Customary Marriage Forfeiture of Benefits Community of Property

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B[....] H[....]

Appellant

C[....] T[....] M[....]

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Regional Court Divorce Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court a quo was entitled to limit the calculation of pension interest to the date of marriage.
  2. 2 Whether the order deprived the appellant of her rightful share in the joint estate.
  3. 3 Whether a forfeiture of benefits order was properly pleaded or considered.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the pension interest forms part of the joint estate in a marriage in community of property, and there was no legal basis for limiting the calculation of pension interest to the date of marriage unless a forfeiture of benefits order was properly pleaded and considered. The trial court misdirected itself by making such an order without any claim for forfeiture or consideration of the statutory factors. The appellant was denied her rightful share, and the appeal was upheld. The correct order is that the pension interest held by the respondent under the specified pension number with the Government Employees Pension Fund, calculated up to the date of divorce, must be paid...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld with costs. Paragraph 4 of the order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced.

Orders

  • Appeal is upheld with costs.
  • Paragraph 4 of the order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced with: Pension interest held by the Defendant under pension no. 96956170 with the Government Employees Pension Fund, calculated up to the date of divorce, to be paid to the Plaintiff.