Kritzinger v Kritzinger (52/87) [1988] ZASCA 91; [1989] 1 All SA 325 (A) (16 September 1988)

Kritzinger v Kritzinger (52/87) [1988] ZASCA 91; [1989] 1 All SA 325 (A) (16 September 1988)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant made substantial, direct financial contributions to the acquisition and improvement of the common home, far exceeding those of the respondent. The respondent's alleged career sacrifice did not constitute a contribution within the meaning of section 7(4) of the Divorce Act, as it was not a positive act that caused an increase in the appellant's estate. The Court found no conspicuous disparity in fault between the parties and held that fault should not be a significant factor in the proprietary claims. The trial court erred by adopting a globular approach and failing to consider the claims separately. The appellant was entitled to a...

Citation
[1988] ZASCA 91
Parties
Appellant: June Margaret Kritzinger; Respondent: Konrad Marthinus Kritzinger
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 September 1988
Case Number
52/87
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal upheld with costs. Judgment for the appellant on her claim in convention; respondent's claim in reconvention dismissed.
Judges
Corbett, Milne, Nicholas
Legal Topics
Divorce Act Section 7, Redistribution Order, Contribution to Estate, Fault in Divorce, Division of Assets
Family and Children Civil Procedure Divorce Act Section 7 Redistribution Order Contribution to Estate Fault in Divorce Division of Assets

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

June Margaret Kritzinger

Appellant

Konrad Marthinus Kritzinger

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant is entitled to a redistribution order under section 7(3) of the Divorce Act for her contributions to the common home.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's alleged sacrifice of career advancement constitutes a contribution within the meaning of section 7(4) of the Divorce Act.
  3. 3 Whether fault in the breakdown of the marriage should affect proprietary claims under section 7(3).

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant made substantial, direct financial contributions to the acquisition and improvement of the common home, far exceeding those of the respondent. The respondent's alleged career sacrifice did not constitute a contribution within the meaning of section 7(4) of the Divorce Act, as it was not a positive act that caused an increase in the appellant's estate. The Court found no conspicuous disparity in fault between the parties and held that fault should not be a significant factor in the proprietary claims. The trial court erred by adopting a globular approach and failing to consider the claims separately. The appellant was entitled to a...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld with costs. Judgment for the appellant on her claim in convention; respondent's claim in reconvention dismissed.

Orders

  • Judgment for the appellant in the sum of R109,000 together with interest at 15% per annum from 1 April 1987 to date of payment, with costs including costs of two counsel.
  • Respondent's claim in reconvention dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.