Kirkland v Kirkland (A434/04) [2005] ZAWCHC 42; [2005] 3 All SA 353 (C); 2006 (6) SA 144 (C) (10 June 2005)

Kirkland v Kirkland (A434/04) [2005] ZAWCHC 42; [2005] 3 All SA 353 (C); 2006 (6) SA 144 (C) (10 June 2005)

The appellate court found that the trial judge erred in valuing certain assets, notably appellant's deposit with Barlows, which should have been reduced to reflect the actual loss. The court also held that the values of assets in England should have been adjusted for exchange rate fluctuations between the date of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2005] ZAWCHC 42
Parties
Appellant: Denys John Kirkland; Respondent: Jill Patricia Kirkland
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 June 2005
Case Number
A434/04
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Redistribution Order and Costs in Divorce Proceedings
Outcome
Appeal upheld with costs. Redistribution order varied to award appellant a higher sum. Costs order amended.
Judges
Blignault, Veldhuizen, Dlodlo
Legal Topics
Divorce Act Section 7 3, Redistribution of Assets, Matrimonial Property, Contribution to Estate, Costs Award, Admission of New Evidence
Family and Children Civil Procedure Divorce Act Section 7 3 Redistribution of Assets Matrimonial Property Contribution to Estate Costs Award Admission of New Evidence

Source-derived case record

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 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Denys John Kirkland

Appellant

Jill Patricia Kirkland

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Redistribution Order and Costs in Divorce Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court erred in its redistribution order under section 7(3) of the Divorce Act.
  2. 2 Whether the values of certain assets should have been adjusted for exchange rate fluctuations and actual realised values.
  3. 3 Whether appellant's deposit with Barlows was correctly valued.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellate court found that the trial judge erred in valuing certain assets, notably appellant's deposit with Barlows, which should have been reduced to reflect the actual loss. The court also held that the values of assets in England should have been adjusted for exchange rate fluctuations between the date of the settlement agreement and the date of judgment. While the parties had agreed on asset values, the court determined that material unforeseen deviations, such as realised sale values and currency changes, were relevant factors under section 7(5)(d) of the Divorce Act. The court declined to admit new evidence regarding asset sales, citing the need for finality in litigation and...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld with costs. Redistribution order varied to award appellant a higher sum. Costs order amended.

Orders

  • Plaintiff is ordered to pay a total amount of R4,623,507.00 to defendant, such payment to be made on or before 31 November 2005, with interest at 15.5% per annum from 10 June 2005 on any unpaid balance.
  • Plaintiff is ordered to pay defendant's costs, including the qualifying fees and expenses of Mr Stephanus Smith.