BS v PS (291/2017) [2018] ZASCA 37; 2018 (4) SA 400 (SCA) (28 March 2018)

BS v PS (291/2017) [2018] ZASCA 37; 2018 (4) SA 400 (SCA) (28 March 2018)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the High Court erred in granting a partial forfeiture order against the appellant, as the evidence did not support the conclusion that she caused the breakdown of the marriage or contributed less to the accrual of the respondent's estate. Both parties were guilty of infidelity, and the appellant made significant financial contributions to the household. The duration of the marriage and the appellant's lack of a home further militated against forfeiture. The court also found that the deferral of payment of the pension interest assigned to the appellant was precluded by the statutory 'clean-break' principle in s 24A of the Government Employees Pension...

Citation
[2018] ZASCA 37
Parties
Appellant: BS; Respondent: PS
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 March 2018
Case Number
291/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Eastern Cape Division of the High Court, Grahamstown
Outcome
Appeal upheld; High Court orders set aside and replaced.
Judges
Lewis, Willis, Swain, Mathopo, Mocumie
Legal Topics
Divorce Act, Matrimonial Property Act, Pension Interest, Accrual System, Forfeiture of Benefits, Clean Break Principle
Family and Children Civil Procedure Divorce Act Matrimonial Property Act Pension Interest Accrual System Forfeiture of Benefits Clean Break Principle

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BS

Appellant

PS

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Eastern Cape Division of the High Court, Grahamstown

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court correctly granted a partial forfeiture order against the appellant in respect of the accrual of the respondent's estate.
  2. 2 Whether the High Court correctly ordered deferral of payment of the pension benefit to the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the High Court erred in granting a partial forfeiture order against the appellant, as the evidence did not support the conclusion that she caused the breakdown of the marriage or contributed less to the accrual of the respondent's estate. Both parties were guilty of infidelity, and the appellant made significant financial contributions to the household. The duration of the marriage and the appellant's lack of a home further militated against forfeiture. The court also found that the deferral of payment of the pension interest assigned to the appellant was precluded by the statutory 'clean-break' principle in s 24A of the Government Employees Pension...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; High Court orders set aside and replaced.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds with costs.
  • Paragraphs 28.3 to 28.7 of the High Court order are set aside and replaced.