Modisane v Modisane and Another (10061/2018) [2018] ZAGPPHC 382 (13 March 2018)

Modisane v Modisane and Another (10061/2018) [2018] ZAGPPHC 382 (13 March 2018)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide evidence that the first respondent intended to dissipate his pension funds upon payment. Without such evidence, the requirements for granting an anti-dissipation interdict were not satisfied. Consequently, the urgent application was dismissed.

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 382
Parties
Applicant: Hlekiwe Annie Modisane; Respondent: Motseose Koos Modisane; Respondent: Momentum
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 March 2018
Case Number
10061/2018
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Request for Reasons After Dismissal of Urgent Application
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
Tuchten
Legal Topics
Maintenance Enquiry, Anti Dissipation Interdict, Urgent Interdict, Pension Fund Payments
Family and Children Civil Procedure Maintenance Enquiry Anti Dissipation Interdict Urgent Interdict Pension Fund Payments

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hlekiwe Annie Modisane

Applicant

Motseose Koos Modisane

Respondent

Momentum

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Request for Reasons After Dismissal of Urgent Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an urgent anti-dissipation interdict preventing payment of the first respondent's pension pending a maintenance enquiry.
  2. 2 Whether there is evidence that the first respondent intends to dissipate his pension funds.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide evidence that the first respondent intended to dissipate his pension funds upon payment. Without such evidence, the requirements for granting an anti-dissipation interdict were not satisfied. Consequently, the urgent application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The urgent application is dismissed.