L.M v G.J.M (A112/10) [2011] ZAWCHC 28 (25 February 2011)

L.M v G.J.M (A112/10) [2011] ZAWCHC 28 (25 February 2011)

The court found that the appellant failed to discharge the onus of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that she lacked sufficient means to maintain herself and that the respondent was financially able to pay maintenance. The evidence showed that the appellant was self-sufficient, had supported herself after previous divorces, and continued to earn income through her missionary work. The respondent's financial difficulties were substantiated and not shown to be untrue or suspicious. The trial court exercised its discretion judicially, considering all relevant factors under section 7(2) of the Divorce Act. There was no basis for appellate interference except for the costs order, which...

Citation
[2011] ZAWCHC 28
Parties
Appellant: L M; Respondent: G J M
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 February 2011
Case Number
A112/10
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Divorce Maintenance Order
Outcome
Appeal refused. The order of the trial court is confirmed except that the costs order against the appellant in the divorce action is set aside. No order as to costs in the appeal.
Judges
E Steyn, Desai, P Goliath
Legal Topics
Spousal Maintenance, Divorce Act Section 7, Onus of Proof, Judicial Discretion, Costs Order
Family and Children Spousal Maintenance Divorce Act Section 7 Onus of Proof Judicial Discretion Costs Order

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

Parties

L M

Appellant

G J M

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Divorce Maintenance Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant is entitled to post-divorce spousal maintenance under section 7(2) of the Divorce Act.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court exercised its discretion judicially in refusing maintenance.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant discharged the onus of proving lack of means and respondent's ability to pay.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant failed to discharge the onus of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that she lacked sufficient means to maintain herself and that the respondent was financially able to pay maintenance. The evidence showed that the appellant was self-sufficient, had supported herself after previous divorces, and continued to earn income through her missionary work. The respondent's financial difficulties were substantiated and not shown to be untrue or suspicious. The trial court exercised its discretion judicially, considering all relevant factors under section 7(2) of the Divorce Act. There was no basis for appellate interference except for the costs order, which...

Court Disposition

Appeal refused. The order of the trial court is confirmed except that the costs order against the appellant in the divorce action is set aside. No order as to costs in the appeal.

Orders

  • The appeal is refused.
  • The order of the trial court is confirmed, except that the costs order against the appellant in the divorce action is set aside.