C.M.M v A.M.S.M (13966/2020) [2022] ZAGPPHC 713 (21 September 2022)

C.M.M v A.M.S.M (13966/2020) [2022] ZAGPPHC 713 (21 September 2022)

The court found that the plaintiff did not bring any tangible asset into the marriage and did not contribute to the upbringing or education of the children. The defendant was left to build the common assets and raise the children after the plaintiff abandoned the home. The plaintiff's infidelity and conduct amounted to substantial misconduct, which caused the breakdown of the marriage. The defendant's evidence was accepted as truthful and unchallenged, while the plaintiff's testimony was found unreliable and inconsistent. The court held that the plaintiff would be unduly benefited if she received 50% of the assets accumulated during the marriage, and therefore granted the forfeiture order...

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 713
Parties
Plaintiff: C[....] M[....] M[....]2; Defendant: A[....] M[....]3 S[....] M[....]2
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 September 2022
Case Number
13966/2020
Procedural Posture
Divorce Action / Trial
Outcome
Forfeiture of patrimonial benefits granted in favour of the defendant.
Judges
Makhoba
Legal Topics
Divorce Act Section 9, Forfeiture of Patrimonial Benefits, Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage, Substantial Misconduct, Division of Joint Estate
Family and Children Divorce Act Section 9 Forfeiture of Patrimonial Benefits Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage Substantial Misconduct Division of Joint Estate

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C[....] M[....] M[....]2

Plaintiff

A[....] M[....]3 S[....] M[....]2

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Divorce Action / Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff should forfeit patrimonial benefits as prayed for by the defendant in his counterclaim.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant proved the nature and extent of any patrimonial benefit capable of being forfeited.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff will be unduly benefited if the forfeiture order is not made.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff did not bring any tangible asset into the marriage and did not contribute to the upbringing or education of the children. The defendant was left to build the common assets and raise the children after the plaintiff abandoned the home. The plaintiff's infidelity and conduct amounted to substantial misconduct, which caused the breakdown of the marriage. The defendant's evidence was accepted as truthful and unchallenged, while the plaintiff's testimony was found unreliable and inconsistent. The court held that the plaintiff would be unduly benefited if she received 50% of the assets accumulated during the marriage, and therefore granted the forfeiture order...

Court Disposition

Forfeiture of patrimonial benefits granted in favour of the defendant.

Orders

  • A decree of divorce is granted.
  • The plaintiff forfeits her share of the defendant's pension interest held by the Government Employee's Pension Fund.