De Haas v Fromentin and Others (499/12) [2013] ZASCA 144; 2013 (6) SA 621 (SCA) (30 September 2013)

De Haas v Fromentin and Others (499/12) [2013] ZASCA 144; 2013 (6) SA 621 (SCA) (30 September 2013)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the maintenance order between the parties was not validly varied by oral agreement, as the non-variation clause required any variation to be in writing and signed by both parties or ordered by a competent court. The arrangement reached during mediation was intended as a trial and did not constitute a formal variation. The respondent's evidence of payments made directly to third parties and the children could not be rejected on the papers, and the quantum of arrear maintenance could not be definitively determined due to factual disputes. The error in the calculation of arrears by the court a quo did not warrant interference with the sanction imposed....

Citation
[2013] ZASCA 144
Parties
Appellant: Sandra Lee De Haas; Respondent: Garry John Fromentin; Respondent: The Sheriff of the Court: Sandton; Respondent: Turquoise Moon Trading 309 (Pty) Ltd
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 September 2013
Case Number
499/12
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Judges
Mthiyane, Theron, Petse, Van der Merwe, Zondi
Legal Topics
Maintenance Order, Contempt of Court, Non Variation Clause, Best Interests of Children, Enforcement of Judgments
Family and Children Civil Procedure Maintenance Order Contempt of Court Non Variation Clause Best Interests of Children Enforcement of Judgments

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sandra Lee De Haas

Appellant

Garry John Fromentin

Respondent

The Sheriff of the Court: Sandton

Respondent

Turquoise Moon Trading 309 (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sanction for contempt of court imposed by the court a quo should be interfered with on appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the maintenance order was validly varied by oral agreement despite a non-variation clause.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent was in arrears and the quantum of arrear maintenance owed.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the maintenance order between the parties was not validly varied by oral agreement, as the non-variation clause required any variation to be in writing and signed by both parties or ordered by a competent court. The arrangement reached during mediation was intended as a trial and did not constitute a formal variation. The respondent's evidence of payments made directly to third parties and the children could not be rejected on the papers, and the quantum of arrear maintenance could not be definitively determined due to factual disputes. The error in the calculation of arrears by the court a quo did not warrant interference with the sanction imposed....

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs of the appeal.