L.M v M.M (A5008/2021) [2024] ZAGPJHC 325 (28 March 2024)

L.M v M.M (A5008/2021) [2024] ZAGPJHC 325 (28 March 2024)

The court found that the variation of Senyatsi AJ's order under Rule 42(1)(b) was justified, as the original judgment contained a patent error by failing to include the agreed values of the parties' other assets in the accrual calculation. The evidence established that the parties had agreed on the values of all assets except the LBMC shares, and the only issue for determination was the value of those shares. The calculation by Mr Getz, which included both parties' assets, was accepted as the correct basis for determining the accrual. The court held that the variation did not alter the substance of the original judgment but merely corrected an omission, ensuring compliance with the...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 325
Parties
Appellant: L.M; Respondent: M.M
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 March 2024
Case Number
A5008/2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Variation Order Under Rule 42(1)(b) Following Divorce Settlement and Accrual Determination.
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Noko, Opperman, Wilson
Legal Topics
Matrimonial Property Act, Accrual System, Variation of Judgment, Rule 42 Uniform Rules, Divorce Settlement
Family and Children Civil Procedure Matrimonial Property Act Accrual System Variation of Judgment Rule 42 Uniform Rules Divorce Settlement

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 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

L.M

Appellant

M.M

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Variation Order Under Rule 42(1)(b) Following Divorce Settlement and Accrual Determination.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court a quo correctly varied the judgment of Senyatsi AJ under Rule 42(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court.
  2. 2 Whether the calculation of the accrual and the amount payable to the respondent was correct and in accordance with the Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984.
  3. 3 Whether the variation altered the substance of the original judgment or merely corrected a patent error/omission.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the variation of Senyatsi AJ's order under Rule 42(1)(b) was justified, as the original judgment contained a patent error by failing to include the agreed values of the parties' other assets in the accrual calculation. The evidence established that the parties had agreed on the values of all assets except the LBMC shares, and the only issue for determination was the value of those shares. The calculation by Mr Getz, which included both parties' assets, was accepted as the correct basis for determining the accrual. The court held that the variation did not alter the substance of the original judgment but merely corrected an omission, ensuring compliance with the...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.