N.C.M v V.T.M and Another (5403/2016) [2017] ZAECGHC 75 (20 June 2017)

N.C.M v V.T.M and Another (5403/2016) [2017] ZAECGHC 75 (20 June 2017)

The applicant failed to provide admissible and credible evidence that the first respondent was dissipating or likely to dissipate pension fund assets with the intention of defeating her claim in the divorce proceedings. The only evidence presented was hearsay from unnamed relatives, which was inadmissible under the Law of Evidence Amendment Act. No facts were placed before the court to show the requisite state of mind or conduct by the first respondent. Consequently, the requirements for an anti-dissipation order were not met. The applicant also failed to show cause why she should not pay the costs out of her half of the joint estate, as previously ordered. The rule nisi was discharged...

Citation
[2017] ZAECGHC 75
Parties
Applicant: N.C.M.; Respondent: V.T.M.; Respondent: Evergreen Provident Fund, Division of Old Mutual
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 June 2017
Case Number
5403/2016
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Return Day of Rule Nisi; Final Determination of Anti Dissipation Interdict
Outcome
Application dismissed; rule nisi discharged; costs awarded against applicant out of her half of the joint estate.
Judges
G H Bloem
Legal Topics
Anti Dissipation Order, Community of Property, Hearsay Evidence, Costs Order
Family and Children Civil Procedure Anti Dissipation Order Community of Property Hearsay Evidence Costs Order

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

N.C.M.

Applicant

V.T.M.

Respondent

Evergreen Provident Fund, Division of Old Mutual

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Return Day of Rule Nisi; Final Determination of Anti Dissipation Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant established grounds for an anti-dissipation order against the first respondent.
  2. 2 Whether hearsay evidence provided by the applicant is admissible.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant should pay the costs of the application out of her half of the joint estate.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to provide admissible and credible evidence that the first respondent was dissipating or likely to dissipate pension fund assets with the intention of defeating her claim in the divorce proceedings. The only evidence presented was hearsay from unnamed relatives, which was inadmissible under the Law of Evidence Amendment Act. No facts were placed before the court to show the requisite state of mind or conduct by the first respondent. Consequently, the requirements for an anti-dissipation order were not met. The applicant also failed to show cause why she should not pay the costs out of her half of the joint estate, as previously ordered. The rule nisi was discharged...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; rule nisi discharged; costs awarded against applicant out of her half of the joint estate.

Orders

  • The rule nisi issued on 21 November 2016 is discharged.
  • The applicant must pay the costs of the application, including previously reserved costs, out of her half of the joint estate after division.