M.D.M v T.P.M (HCAA06/2021) [2021] ZALMPPHC 84 (23 November 2021)

M.D.M v T.P.M (HCAA06/2021) [2021] ZALMPPHC 84 (23 November 2021)

The court found that the appellant had condoned the respondent's extra-marital relationship for nine years and had expressly permitted him to continue such conduct until he tired of it. This amounted to a waiver of her right to rely on the respondent's misconduct as a ground for forfeiture. Both parties contributed to the breakdown of the marriage and the demise of the family business, with evidence showing that the appellant herself engaged in competing business activities. The duration of the marriage, the circumstances of the breakdown, and the conduct of both parties did not justify a finding that the respondent would be unduly benefited if forfeiture was not ordered. The court a quo...

Citation
[2021] ZALMPPHC 84
Parties
Appellant: M.D.M; Respondent: T.P.M
Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 November 2021
Case Number
HCAA06/2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Judgment and Order of Court a Quo
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed and there is no order as to costs.
Judges
Kganyago, Muller, Naude
Legal Topics
Divorce Act Section 9, Forfeiture of Patrimonial Benefits, Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage, Substantial Misconduct, Division of Joint Estate, Pension Interest
Family and Children Civil Procedure Divorce Act Section 9 Forfeiture of Patrimonial Benefits Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage Substantial Misconduct Division of Joint Estate Pension Interest

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M.D.M

Appellant

T.P.M

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Judgment and Order of Court a Quo

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court a quo properly exercised its discretion in dismissing the appellant's claim for forfeiture of patrimonial benefits.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's alleged substantial misconduct and mismanagement of the family business justify a forfeiture order.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent would be unduly benefited if forfeiture is not ordered.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant had condoned the respondent's extra-marital relationship for nine years and had expressly permitted him to continue such conduct until he tired of it. This amounted to a waiver of her right to rely on the respondent's misconduct as a ground for forfeiture. Both parties contributed to the breakdown of the marriage and the demise of the family business, with evidence showing that the appellant herself engaged in competing business activities. The duration of the marriage, the circumstances of the breakdown, and the conduct of both parties did not justify a finding that the respondent would be unduly benefited if forfeiture was not ordered. The court a quo...

Court Disposition

The appeal is dismissed and there is no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.