Ferreira v Rossberg and Another (6317/2010) [2011] ZAGPPHC 143 (27 May 2011)

Ferreira v Rossberg and Another (6317/2010) [2011] ZAGPPHC 143 (27 May 2011)

The court found that the applicant was entitled to payment of the amount held in trust, as determined by Mr. Prinsloo in accordance with the antenuptial contract and the settlement agreement made an order of court. The respondents had no legal basis to withhold payment, particularly as they lacked locus standi to claim maintenance for their major daughter. The second respondent's counterclaim for the appointment of a new liquidator was dismissed because Mr. Prinsloo had not been served with the application and no cogent reasons were provided for the delay in seeking his removal. Costs were awarded against the second respondent, as she was the principal in instructing the first respondent...

Citation
[2011] ZAGPPHC 143
Parties
Applicant: Ferreira David Hermanus; Respondent: Rossberg Sophia Magrieta; Respondent: Ferreira Elizabeth Hendrieka
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 May 2011
Case Number
6317/2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application granted; counterclaim dismissed with costs.
Judges
NM Mavundla
Legal Topics
Accrual System, Antenuptial Contract, Liquidator Appointment, Maintenance, Costs Award
Family and Children Civil Procedure Accrual System Antenuptial Contract Liquidator Appointment Maintenance 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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ferreira David Hermanus

Applicant

Rossberg Sophia Magrieta

Respondent

Ferreira Elizabeth Hendrieka

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to payment of R343,229.54 plus interest from the first respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the second respondent's counterclaim for the appointment of a new liquidator or payment of a specific amount should be granted.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents are entitled to withhold payment due to alleged maintenance obligations.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was entitled to payment of the amount held in trust, as determined by Mr. Prinsloo in accordance with the antenuptial contract and the settlement agreement made an order of court. The respondents had no legal basis to withhold payment, particularly as they lacked locus standi to claim maintenance for their major daughter. The second respondent's counterclaim for the appointment of a new liquidator was dismissed because Mr. Prinsloo had not been served with the application and no cogent reasons were provided for the delay in seeking his removal. Costs were awarded against the second respondent, as she was the principal in instructing the first respondent...

Court Disposition

Application granted; counterclaim dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The first respondent is ordered to forthwith make payment to the applicant of the amount of R343,229.54 together with the interest accrued thereon and to account to the applicant in respect thereof.
  • The first and second respondent jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved, must pay the costs of this application.