M.A.M v M.P.M (14836/2007) [2018] ZAGPPHC 273 (20 April 2018)

M.A.M v M.P.M (14836/2007) [2018] ZAGPPHC 273 (20 April 2018)

The court found that the marriage subsisted for a short period, the plaintiff committed substantial misconduct including adultery and violence, and the immovable properties and pension benefits were acquired by the defendant prior to the marriage. The plaintiff took the furniture she purchased when leaving. Considering the facts and Section 9 of the Divorce Act, the court held that the plaintiff would be unduly benefited if forfeiture was not granted. The defendant's evidence was uncontested, and the omission in the counterclaim was cured by the evidence. Therefore, forfeiture of the two immovable properties and pension benefits was granted in favour of the defendant.

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 273
Parties
Plaintiff: M.A.M; Defendant: M.P.M
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 April 2018
Case Number
14836/2007
Procedural Posture
Divorce Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Divorce granted with forfeiture of patrimonial benefits against the plaintiff in respect of two immovable properties and pension benefits; each party to retain assets in their possession; plaintiff to pay defendant's costs.
Judges
A P Ledwaba
Legal Topics
Forfeiture of Patrimonial Benefits, Division of Joint Estate, Maintenance, Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage
Family and Children Forfeiture of Patrimonial Benefits Division of Joint Estate Maintenance Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M.A.M

Plaintiff

M.P.M

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Divorce Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an order of forfeiture of patrimonial benefits against the plaintiff should be granted.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to maintenance and division of the joint estate.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's pension benefits and immovable properties should be forfeited by the plaintiff.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the marriage subsisted for a short period, the plaintiff committed substantial misconduct including adultery and violence, and the immovable properties and pension benefits were acquired by the defendant prior to the marriage. The plaintiff took the furniture she purchased when leaving. Considering the facts and Section 9 of the Divorce Act, the court held that the plaintiff would be unduly benefited if forfeiture was not granted. The defendant's evidence was uncontested, and the omission in the counterclaim was cured by the evidence. Therefore, forfeiture of the two immovable properties and pension benefits was granted in favour of the defendant.

Court Disposition

Divorce granted with forfeiture of patrimonial benefits against the plaintiff in respect of two immovable properties and pension benefits; each party to retain assets in their possession; plaintiff to pay defendant's costs.

Orders

  • Decree of divorce is granted.
  • Order of forfeiture in respect of two immovable properties at Mamelodi and Hammanskraal and the defendant's pension benefits is granted in favour of the defendant.