Muller v Muller (3004/06) [2007] ZAECHC 42 (12 June 2007)

Muller v Muller (3004/06) [2007] ZAECHC 42 (12 June 2007)

The court found that the applicant failed to prove adultery between the respondents, as the evidence was largely circumstantial, speculative, and based on hearsay. The specific incident alleged at the Formule 1 Hotel was not substantiated, and the applicant admitted under cross-examination that he did not know where or when adultery occurred. However, the court accepted that there was a strong friendship between the first and second respondent, which brought the applicant considerable unhappiness. The amended particulars of claim allowed for an alternative claim of unlawful and improper interference in the marriage. The court held that, on the evidence, there was a reasonable possibility...

Citation
[2007] ZAECHC 42
Parties
Applicant: Stephanus Johannes Muller; Respondent: Annemarie Muller (born Meyer); Respondent: Andre van Niekerk
Court
High Courts - Eastern Cape
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 June 2007
Case Number
3004/06
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Application for Absolution From the Instance After Plaintiff's Case
Outcome
Application for absolution from the instance refused; costs to be costs in the cause.
Judges
J C H Jansen
Legal Topics
Adultery, Contumelia, Loss of Consortium, Absolution From the Instance
Family and Children Delict Adultery Contumelia Loss of Consortium Absolution From the Instance

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephanus Johannes Muller

Applicant

Annemarie Muller (born Meyer)

Respondent

Andre van Niekerk

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure / Application for Absolution From the Instance After Plaintiff's Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff proved adultery between the first and second respondent during the marriage.
  2. 2 Whether the conduct of the second respondent constituted unlawful interference in the marital relationship.
  3. 3 Whether the evidence supports a claim for damages for contumelia and loss of consortium.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to prove adultery between the respondents, as the evidence was largely circumstantial, speculative, and based on hearsay. The specific incident alleged at the Formule 1 Hotel was not substantiated, and the applicant admitted under cross-examination that he did not know where or when adultery occurred. However, the court accepted that there was a strong friendship between the first and second respondent, which brought the applicant considerable unhappiness. The amended particulars of claim allowed for an alternative claim of unlawful and improper interference in the marriage. The court held that, on the evidence, there was a reasonable possibility...

Court Disposition

Application for absolution from the instance refused; costs to be costs in the cause.

Orders

  • The application for absolution from the instance is dismissed.
  • Costs of the application will be costs in the cause.