N.E.M (born M) v R.L.D.M (2220/2021) [2024] ZAFSHC 28 (2 February 2024)

N.E.M (born M) v R.L.D.M (2220/2021) [2024] ZAFSHC 28 (2 February 2024)

The court found that both parties contributed to the joint estate during the marriage, with the defendant making significant financial contributions for the first 15 years and the plaintiff taking over major expenses thereafter. The evidence did not support the plaintiff's claim that the defendant failed to contribute after his resignation, nor did it establish that his conduct amounted to substantial misconduct justifying forfeiture. Adultery, while present, was not proven to be the sole or substantial cause of the marriage's breakdown. The court held that the requirements for forfeiture under section 9 of the Divorce Act were not met, and the defendant would not be unduly benefited by...

Citation
[2024] ZAFSHC 28
Parties
Plaintiff: N.E.M (born M); Defendant: R.L.D.M
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 February 2024
Case Number
2220/2021
Procedural Posture
Divorce Action / Trial and Final Judgment
Outcome
Divorce granted; division of joint estate including pension benefits; no forfeiture; each party to pay own costs.
Judges
Mthimunye AJ
Legal Topics
Divorce Act Section 9, Forfeiture of Patrimonial Benefits, Division of Joint Estate, Adultery, Costs in Divorce, Pension Interest
Family and Children Divorce Act Section 9 Forfeiture of Patrimonial Benefits Division of Joint Estate Adultery Costs in Divorce Pension Interest

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 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

N.E.M (born M)

Plaintiff

R.L.D.M

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Divorce Action / Trial and Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant should forfeit his 50% share of the plaintiff's pension benefit under section 9 of the Divorce Act.
  2. 2 Whether the division of the joint estate should include the plaintiff's pension benefits.
  3. 3 Whether either party's conduct constitutes substantial misconduct justifying forfeiture.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that both parties contributed to the joint estate during the marriage, with the defendant making significant financial contributions for the first 15 years and the plaintiff taking over major expenses thereafter. The evidence did not support the plaintiff's claim that the defendant failed to contribute after his resignation, nor did it establish that his conduct amounted to substantial misconduct justifying forfeiture. Adultery, while present, was not proven to be the sole or substantial cause of the marriage's breakdown. The court held that the requirements for forfeiture under section 9 of the Divorce Act were not met, and the defendant would not be unduly benefited by...

Court Disposition

Divorce granted; division of joint estate including pension benefits; no forfeiture; each party to pay own costs.

Orders

  • The decree of divorce is granted and the marriage is dissolved.
  • Division of the joint estate in terms of marriage in community of property including the plaintiff's pension benefits.