M.M.L v J.J.L (A66/2023) [2023] ZAFSHC 170 (18 May 2023)

M.M.L v J.J.L (A66/2023) [2023] ZAFSHC 170 (18 May 2023)

The court found that the appellant was cohabiting with Mr Coetzee within the meaning of the dum casta clause in the Deed of Settlement. The evidence established that Mr Coetzee regularly stayed at the appellant's residence, contributed financially, stored personal items, and maintained an intimate relationship with the appellant. The appellant's explanations regarding certain evidence were not persuasive, and the probabilities favoured the respondent's version. The maintenance obligation was therefore terminated. Additionally, the appellant was responsible for the wasted costs of postponements due to her failure to provide a complete record for the appeal, and costs followed the result.

Citation
[2023] ZAFSHC 170
Parties
Appellant: M.M.L; Respondent: J.J.L
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 May 2023
Case Number
A66/2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Maintenance Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including wasted costs for postponements on 1 August 2022 and 14 November 2022.
Judges
N.M. MBHELE, S. TSANGARAKIS
Legal Topics
Dum Casta Clause, Maintenance Obligation, Cohabitation, Deed of Settlement, Costs of Appeal
Family and Children Civil Procedure Dum Casta Clause Maintenance Obligation Cohabitation Deed of Settlement Costs of Appeal

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

Parties

M.M.L

Appellant

J.J.L

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Maintenance Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's maintenance entitlement terminated due to cohabitation with another man as per the dum casta clause.
  2. 2 Whether the factual findings of the Court a quo regarding cohabitation were correct.
  3. 3 Who should bear the costs of the appeal and wasted costs due to postponements.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant was cohabiting with Mr Coetzee within the meaning of the dum casta clause in the Deed of Settlement. The evidence established that Mr Coetzee regularly stayed at the appellant's residence, contributed financially, stored personal items, and maintained an intimate relationship with the appellant. The appellant's explanations regarding certain evidence were not persuasive, and the probabilities favoured the respondent's version. The maintenance obligation was therefore terminated. Additionally, the appellant was responsible for the wasted costs of postponements due to her failure to provide a complete record for the appeal, and costs followed the result.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including wasted costs for postponements on 1 August 2022 and 14 November 2022.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the wasted costs occasioned by the postponement of the appeal on 1 August 2022 and 14 November 2022.