Masukela M v Masukela P (DIV155/2017) [2018] ZANWHC 65 (22 November 2018)

Masukela M v Masukela P (DIV155/2017) [2018] ZANWHC 65 (22 November 2018)

The court found that both parties contributed to the joint estate, with the applicant providing a substantial loan and purchasing furniture, while the respondent contributed more due to higher earnings. The respondent failed to provide evidence of the value of the joint estate, making it impossible to determine if the applicant would be unduly benefited by not forfeiting patrimonial benefits. The court rejected the respondent's claim of substantial misconduct by the applicant, noting that her pregnancy occurred after the parties had separated and the marriage was effectively over. The respondent's request for complete forfeiture was motivated by vindictiveness rather than legal merit....

Citation
[2018] ZANWHC 65
Parties
Applicant: Mpho Masukela (born Seripe); Respondent: Phakane Moses Masukela
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 November 2018
Case Number
DIV155/2017
Procedural Posture
Divorce Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Decree of divorce granted; joint estate and pension interests to be divided equally; no order as to costs.
Judges
D I Matlapeng
Legal Topics
Divorce Act Forfeiture, Division of Joint Estate, Pension Interest, Irretrievable Breakdown, Contribution to Estate
Family and Children Divorce Act Forfeiture Division of Joint Estate Pension Interest Irretrievable Breakdown Contribution to Estate

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mpho Masukela (born Seripe)

Applicant

Phakane Moses Masukela

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Divorce Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the marriage between the parties has irretrievably broken down.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant or respondent is entitled to forfeiture of patrimonial benefits under section 9(1) of the Divorce Act.
  3. 3 How the joint estate and pension interests should be divided upon dissolution of the marriage.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that both parties contributed to the joint estate, with the applicant providing a substantial loan and purchasing furniture, while the respondent contributed more due to higher earnings. The respondent failed to provide evidence of the value of the joint estate, making it impossible to determine if the applicant would be unduly benefited by not forfeiting patrimonial benefits. The court rejected the respondent's claim of substantial misconduct by the applicant, noting that her pregnancy occurred after the parties had separated and the marriage was effectively over. The respondent's request for complete forfeiture was motivated by vindictiveness rather than legal merit....

Court Disposition

Decree of divorce granted; joint estate and pension interests to be divided equally; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • A decree of divorce is granted.
  • The joint estate is to be divided equally between the parties.