B.L.ST v M.J.M (33568/20) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1125 (4 September 2023)

B.L.ST v M.J.M (33568/20) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1125 (4 September 2023)

The court found that the marriage had irretrievably broken down and that the Plaintiff committed substantial misconduct by abandoning the Defendant and minor children, failing to pay maintenance and bond repayments, engaging in secretive and reckless business dealings, and diminishing the joint estate without the Defendant's knowledge or consent. The Plaintiff's actions resulted in economic harm to the joint estate, justifying a forfeiture order. The court held that the Plaintiff would be unduly benefitted if forfeiture was not granted, given the short duration of the marriage and the Plaintiff's conduct. The Defendant's counterclaim for forfeiture of the Plaintiff's share in her...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 1125
Parties
Plaintiff: B.L. S T; Defendant: M.J M
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 September 2023
Case Number
33568/20
Procedural Posture
Divorce Action / Trial and Judgment
Outcome
Defendant's counterclaim for forfeiture of Plaintiff's share in her Government Employees Pension Fund succeeds. Divorce granted. Division of joint estate ordered. Defendant's draft order prayers (C) to (J) incorporated as orders of court.
Judges
Flatela
Legal Topics
Forfeiture of Patrimonial Benefits, Division of Joint Estate, Pension Interest, Substantial Misconduct, Maintenance of Children
Family and Children Forfeiture of Patrimonial Benefits Division of Joint Estate Pension Interest Substantial Misconduct Maintenance of Children

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 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B.L. S T

Plaintiff

M.J M

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Divorce Action / Trial and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiff should forfeit his share in the Defendant's Government Employees Pension Fund.
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff will be unduly benefitted if forfeiture is not granted.
  3. 3 Whether the division of the joint estate should be ordered.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the marriage had irretrievably broken down and that the Plaintiff committed substantial misconduct by abandoning the Defendant and minor children, failing to pay maintenance and bond repayments, engaging in secretive and reckless business dealings, and diminishing the joint estate without the Defendant's knowledge or consent. The Plaintiff's actions resulted in economic harm to the joint estate, justifying a forfeiture order. The court held that the Plaintiff would be unduly benefitted if forfeiture was not granted, given the short duration of the marriage and the Plaintiff's conduct. The Defendant's counterclaim for forfeiture of the Plaintiff's share in her...

Court Disposition

Defendant's counterclaim for forfeiture of Plaintiff's share in her Government Employees Pension Fund succeeds. Divorce granted. Division of joint estate ordered. Defendant's draft order prayers (C) to (J) incorporated as orders of court.

Orders

  • A decree of divorce is granted.
  • The Defendant's counterclaim for the Plaintiff to forfeit his share in her Government Employees Pension Fund succeeds.