D.D.B v T.D.B and Another (2025/073213) [2025] ZAWCHC 250 (19 June 2025)

Parties

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Determination After Interim Relief and Postponement

Legal Issues

1. 1 Whether the conduct of the first respondent justifies a full preservation order of the proceeds for future maintenance of the minor child.
2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to amend clauses of the settlement agreement incorporated into the divorce order.
3. 3 Whether both parents share a reciprocal duty to support the minor child under changed circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the applicant demonstrated concern for the child's future maintenance, the first respondent's conduct did not justify a full preservation order of the sale proceeds. The respondent had made bona fide efforts to meet his obligations, paid arrears voluntarily, and proposed a reasonable compromise. Both parents share a reciprocal duty to support the child, and the demand for the full amount was unreasonable. The court ordered preservation of a portion of the proceeds to safeguard the child's maintenance but refused to amend the settlement agreement, as only the court that granted the original order may do so through proper procedures. Costs were ordered to be borne...

Court Disposition

Application partially granted; preservation order made for part of the proceeds, amendment of settlement agreement refused, each party to bear own costs.

Orders

• The second respondent is directed to transfer R345,220.15 to the applicant’s attorney to be retained in an interest-bearing trust account in compliance with the settlement agreement.
• The applicant shall pay her half of R345,220.15 representing her share of maintenance; if unavailable, she shall contribute an equivalent amount monthly, reflected in the attorney’s account.