M.O v L.F.O (49112/2013) [2014] ZAGPPHC 1040 (11 December 2014)

M.O v L.F.O (49112/2013) [2014] ZAGPPHC 1040 (11 December 2014)

The court found that a factual dispute exists between the respondent and the referees regarding the calculation of accrual, as evidenced by the respondent's detailed objections in his answering affidavit. The settlement agreement, made an order of court, expressly provides that such disputes must be referred to Judge Willie Hartzenberg or, if unavailable, another retired judge for final adjudication. The court cannot ignore its own prior order or adjudicate the merits of the dispute in the absence of the referees as parties. Accordingly, the application is referred for adjudication in accordance with the agreed procedure, and the costs are reserved for determination by the adjudicator.

Citation
[2014] ZAGPPHC 1040
Parties
Applicant: M[...] O[...]; Respondent: L[...] F[...] O[...]
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 December 2014
Case Number
49112/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Referral for Adjudication of Factual Dispute Regarding Accrual Determination
Outcome
Application referred for adjudication of the accrual dispute by Judge Willie Hartzenberg or another retired judge, with costs reserved.
Judges
Mothle
Legal Topics
Accrual System, Matrimonial Property Act, Referee Determination, Settlement Agreement, Court Order Enforcement
Family and Children Civil Procedure Accrual System Matrimonial Property Act Referee Determination Settlement Agreement Court Order Enforcement

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

Parties

M[...] O[...]

Applicant

L[...] F[...] O[...]

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Referral for Adjudication of Factual Dispute Regarding Accrual Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the determination of accrual by the joint referees is final and binding on the parties.
  2. 2 Whether the objections raised by the respondent to the referees' report constitute a bona fide dispute requiring adjudication.
  3. 3 Whether the dispute regarding the accrual calculation should be referred to a retired judge as stipulated in the settlement agreement made an order of court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that a factual dispute exists between the respondent and the referees regarding the calculation of accrual, as evidenced by the respondent's detailed objections in his answering affidavit. The settlement agreement, made an order of court, expressly provides that such disputes must be referred to Judge Willie Hartzenberg or, if unavailable, another retired judge for final adjudication. The court cannot ignore its own prior order or adjudicate the merits of the dispute in the absence of the referees as parties. Accordingly, the application is referred for adjudication in accordance with the agreed procedure, and the costs are reserved for determination by the adjudicator.

Court Disposition

Application referred for adjudication of the accrual dispute by Judge Willie Hartzenberg or another retired judge, with costs reserved.

Orders

  • This application is referred to Judge W Hartzenberg or, if unavailable, any other retired Judge, for final adjudication of the disputes and establishment of the accrual, with his ruling to be final and binding and not subject to review or appeal.
  • The applicant shall, within ten days of this order, approach Judge Hartzenberg with a request to adjudicate the matter, copying the respondent.