BTTM v NKM (054684/2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 992 (1 October 2024)

BTTM v NKM (054684/2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 992 (1 October 2024)

The applicant failed to meet the strict requirements of Section 20 of the Matrimonial Property Act for immediate division of the joint estate prior to divorce. No material evidence was presented of actual or imminent disposal of assets, nor was the nature and extent of the joint estate's assets and liabilities set out. The urgency claimed by the applicant was self-created and not substantiated. The affidavits contained inadmissible hearsay evidence, which was struck out. The application was ill-conceived, opportunistic, and an abuse of process. The respondent was entitled to costs on an attorney and client scale.

Citation
[2024] ZAGPPHC 992
Parties
Applicant: BTTM; Respondent: NKM
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 October 2024
Case Number
054684/2024
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Relief Prior to Divorce Decree
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs on attorney and client scale; inadmissible hearsay struck out from affidavits.
Judges
Minnaar AJ
Legal Topics
Matrimonial Property Act, Division of Joint Estate, Urgent Interdict, Hearsay Evidence, Costs Award
Family and Children Civil Procedure Matrimonial Property Act Division of Joint Estate Urgent Interdict Hearsay Evidence Costs Award

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

Parties

BTTM

Applicant

NKM

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Relief Prior to Divorce Decree

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has met the requirements for immediate division of the joint estate under Section 20 of the Matrimonial Property Act before dissolution of marriage.
  2. 2 Whether the application is urgent as contemplated by Rule 6(12)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's affidavits contain inadmissible hearsay evidence that should be struck out.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to meet the strict requirements of Section 20 of the Matrimonial Property Act for immediate division of the joint estate prior to divorce. No material evidence was presented of actual or imminent disposal of assets, nor was the nature and extent of the joint estate's assets and liabilities set out. The urgency claimed by the applicant was self-created and not substantiated. The affidavits contained inadmissible hearsay evidence, which was struck out. The application was ill-conceived, opportunistic, and an abuse of process. The respondent was entitled to costs on an attorney and client scale.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs on attorney and client scale; inadmissible hearsay struck out from affidavits.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • Paragraphs 26, 27, 29 and Annexures 'L', 'M', 'N' are struck from the founding affidavit as inadmissible hearsay.