M v M and Another (230/2016) [2016] ZAFSHC 132 (4 August 2016)

M v M and Another (230/2016) [2016] ZAFSHC 132 (4 August 2016)

The court found that the applicant was attempting to enforce the deed of settlement against the second respondent, who was not a party to the agreement, and that such enforcement is not permissible. The living annuity administered by the second respondent constitutes a pension benefit protected under section 37A(1) of the Pension Funds Act, which applies to both the capital and monthly pay-outs while under the fund's control. Any order directing the fund administrator to pay a portion of the monthly proceeds to the applicant would amount to an impermissible reduction, transfer, or attachment of a protected benefit. Once the money is paid into the member's bank account, it loses its...

Citation
[2016] ZAFSHC 132
Parties
Applicant: G G M; Respondent: T A M; Respondent: Stanlib Wealth Management Ltd
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 August 2016
Case Number
230/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application against the second respondent dismissed; judgment granted in favour of the applicant against the first respondent for payment of R1 070 021.28 with interest; each party to pay its own costs.
Judges
M C Mokgobo
Legal Topics
Divorce Settlement, Pension Interest, Living Annuity, Section 37a Pension Funds Act, Enforcement of Settlement, Attachment of Pension Benefits
Family and Children Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Divorce Settlement Pension Interest Living Annuity Section 37a Pension Funds Act Enforcement of Settlement +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

G G M

Applicant

T A M

Respondent

Stanlib Wealth Management Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the relief sought is an attempt to enforce the deed of settlement or to found a cause of action against the second respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to half of the monthly pay-outs due to the first respondent and whether section 37A(1) of the Pension Funds Act applies to both capital and monthly pay-outs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was attempting to enforce the deed of settlement against the second respondent, who was not a party to the agreement, and that such enforcement is not permissible. The living annuity administered by the second respondent constitutes a pension benefit protected under section 37A(1) of the Pension Funds Act, which applies to both the capital and monthly pay-outs while under the fund's control. Any order directing the fund administrator to pay a portion of the monthly proceeds to the applicant would amount to an impermissible reduction, transfer, or attachment of a protected benefit. Once the money is paid into the member's bank account, it loses its...

Court Disposition

Application against the second respondent dismissed; judgment granted in favour of the applicant against the first respondent for payment of R1 070 021.28 with interest; each party to pay its own costs.

Orders

  • The application against the second respondent is dismissed.
  • Judgment is granted in favour of the applicant against the first respondent for payment of the amount of R1 070 021.28, with interest at 9% per annum, a tempore morae, to date of payment in full.