C B and Another v H B (1324/2019) [2020] ZASCA 178; 2021 (6) SA 332 (SCA) (18 December 2020)

C B and Another v H B (1324/2019) [2020] ZASCA 178; 2021 (6) SA 332 (SCA) (18 December 2020)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the word 'remarriage' in the settlement agreement must be interpreted as a marriage recognised by South African law, requiring compliance with the Marriage Act. The religious ceremony between the respondent and Mr V did not meet these requirements and therefore did not constitute a remarriage for the purposes of terminating the maintenance obligation. The court found that the first appellant was not in contempt of court for ceasing maintenance payments, as he acted on legal advice and the ceremony did not legally terminate his obligation. The costs order de bonis propriis against the second appellant was set aside due to procedural unfairness and lack...

Citation
[2020] ZASCA 178
Parties
Appellant: C B; Appellant: Sarel Louis Augustyn; Respondent: H B
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 December 2020
Case Number
1324/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria
Outcome
Appeal upheld. The order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced. The religious ceremony did not constitute a remarriage. Costs orders varied.
Judges
Van der Merwe, Mocumie, Makgoka, Ledwaba, Eksteen
Legal Topics
Maintenance Obligation, Interpretation of Settlement Agreement, Remarriage Clause, Cohabitation, Costs De Bonis Propriis
Family and Children Maintenance Obligation Interpretation of Settlement Agreement Remarriage Clause Cohabitation Costs De Bonis Propriis

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

Parties

C B

Appellant

Sarel Louis Augustyn

Appellant

H B

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the correct interpretation of the word 'remarriage' in the settlement agreement incorporated into the divorce order?
  2. 2 Did the religious ceremony between the respondent and Mr V constitute a remarriage for the purposes of terminating maintenance?
  3. 3 Was the first appellant in contempt of court for ceasing maintenance payments?

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the word 'remarriage' in the settlement agreement must be interpreted as a marriage recognised by South African law, requiring compliance with the Marriage Act. The religious ceremony between the respondent and Mr V did not meet these requirements and therefore did not constitute a remarriage for the purposes of terminating the maintenance obligation. The court found that the first appellant was not in contempt of court for ceasing maintenance payments, as he acted on legal advice and the ceremony did not legally terminate his obligation. The costs order de bonis propriis against the second appellant was set aside due to procedural unfairness and lack...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld. The order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced. The religious ceremony did not constitute a remarriage. Costs orders varied.

Orders

  • Paragraph 5.1 of the settlement agreement is amended to read: 'The Defendant shall pay an all-inclusive amount of R10 000 (Ten Thousand Rand) maintenance to the Plaintiff per month until her death or remarriage and/or cohabitation with another man in a common law marriage whichever occurs first.'
  • It is declared that the ceremony performed in respect of the applicant and Mr V on 9 December 2017 did not constitute a remarriage within the meaning of the settlement agreement.