M G B v D E B (4316/2013) [2013] ZAKZDHC 33; [2013] 4 All SA 99 (KZD); 2013 (6) SA 86 (KZD) (21 June 2013)

M G B v D E B (4316/2013) [2013] ZAKZDHC 33; [2013] 4 All SA 99 (KZD); 2013 (6) SA 86 (KZD) (21 June 2013)

The defendant abandoned his claim for forfeiture of benefits, and the evidence did not establish any substantial misconduct by the plaintiff. The court found that the defendant bore the onus to prove which assets should be excluded from the accrual calculation, but he failed to lead evidence or provide sufficient documentation regarding excluded assets. The plaintiff's evidence, based on the defendant's discovered documents and tax returns, was accepted as the best available reflection of the defendant's estate. The court admitted hearsay evidence in the interests of justice, noting the defendant's failure to contradict or supplement the evidence. The accrual in the defendant's estate was...

Citation
[2013] ZAKZDHC 33
Parties
Plaintiff: M G B; Defendant: D E B
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 June 2013
Case Number
4316/2013
Procedural Posture
Divorce Action / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim for accrual granted; maintenance to continue until payment; costs awarded to plaintiff except for psychologist applications.
Judges
Lopes
Legal Topics
Accrual System, Maintenance, Forfeiture of Benefits, Antenuptial Contract, Hearsay Evidence, Costs Order
Family and Children Civil Procedure Accrual System Maintenance Forfeiture of Benefits Antenuptial Contract Hearsay Evidence 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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M G B

Plaintiff

D E B

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Divorce Action / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant is entitled to an order that the plaintiff forfeit the benefits of the accrual regime.
  2. 2 Which party bears the onus regarding the nature and quantum of assets excluded from the accrual regime under the antenuptial contract.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to maintenance, and the quantum and duration thereof.

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant abandoned his claim for forfeiture of benefits, and the evidence did not establish any substantial misconduct by the plaintiff. The court found that the defendant bore the onus to prove which assets should be excluded from the accrual calculation, but he failed to lead evidence or provide sufficient documentation regarding excluded assets. The plaintiff's evidence, based on the defendant's discovered documents and tax returns, was accepted as the best available reflection of the defendant's estate. The court admitted hearsay evidence in the interests of justice, noting the defendant's failure to contradict or supplement the evidence. The accrual in the defendant's estate was...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim for accrual granted; maintenance to continue until payment; costs awarded to plaintiff except for psychologist applications.

Orders

  • The defendant is to pay the plaintiff the sum of R7 324 984.63 by no later than 31 August 2013.
  • The plaintiff is declared to be the owner of one half of the defendant's loan account in Full House Taverns (Pty) Ltd.