Nicolaisen v Nicolaisen (5259/2009) [2009] ZAFSHC 112 (5 November 2009)
- Citation
- [2009] ZAFSHC 112
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- A Kruger
- Case number
- 5259/2009
More details
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- A Kruger
- Case number
- 5259/2009
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the amendment to section 37D of the Pension Funds Act, specifically subsection (4)(d), clearly provides for retrospective application to divorce orders granted before 13 September 2007. This legislative change overrides the previous interpretation in Kirchner v Kirchner, which denied retrospective effect. The applicants, having divorced in 2002, are now entitled to have 100% of the first applicant's pension interest in the specified Old Mutual policy allocated to the second applicant as at the date of divorce. The court granted the relief sought, ordering the pension fund and its administrator to record and pay the allocated interest to the second applicant, and awarded costs against the first applicant.
Court disposition
Application granted. The first applicant's pension interest in Old Mutual policy number 9041381 as at the date of divorce is allocated 100% to the second applicant. Costs awarded against the first applicant.
Orders
- 100% of the first applicant's pension interest in Old Mutual policy number 9041381 as at 15 August 2002 is allocated to the second applicant in terms of section 7(8)(a) of the Divorce Act 70 of 1979 read with section 37D of the Pension Funds Act 24 of 1956, as amended.
- The Registrar of this Court must immediately notify Old Mutual Insurance Company to record that 100% of the first applicant's pension interest in policy number 9041381 is payable to the second applicant.
- The administrator of the pension fund must, within one month of receiving such notification, provide written proof of such record to the Registrar.
- Old Mutual Insurance Company must, within sixty days of service of this order, pay the first applicant's pension interest in policy number 9041381 directly to the second applicant.
- The first applicant must pay the costs of this application.
02
Material facts
Parties
Nicolai Peter Nicolaisen
Applicant Counsel: C.A. HumanJudith Aletta Nicolaisen
Applicant Counsel: C.A. HumanAmounts and remedies
- Percentage of Pension Interest Allocated: 100
03
Procedural history
Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Pension Interest Allocation Order Post Divorce
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether section 37D(4) of the Pension Funds Act applies retrospectively to divorce orders granted before 13 September 2007.
- 02
Whether the applicants are entitled to an order allocating 100% of the first applicant's pension interest to the second applicant as at the date of divorce.
- 03
Whether the previous decision in Kirchner v Kirchner remains applicable after the amendment to section 37D.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicants contend that the amendment to section 37D of the Pension Funds Act now allows for the retrospective allocation of pension interests in divorce matters, even where the divorce occurred before 13 September 2007. They argue that the wording of section 37D(4)(d) makes it clear that the pension interest is deemed to have accrued to the member on 13 September 2007 and must be paid or transferred accordingly. They rely on authoritative commentary and practical guides to support their interpretation.
- Respondent
- No respondent appeared or filed opposing papers. The application was unopposed.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 37D(4)(d) of the Pension Funds Act 24 of 1956, as amended by Act 22 of 2008
Section 37D(4)(d) of the Pension Funds Act, as amended, applies retrospectively to divorce orders granted before 13 September 2007, deeming the pension interest to have accrued to the member on that date and requiring payment or transfer to the non-member spouse.
- 02
Kirchner v Kirchner and Another 2009 (4) SA 448 (W)
The previous decision in Kirchner v Kirchner, which held that section 37D(1)(d) did not have retrospective effect, is neutralized by the subsequent amendment to section 37D(4).
- 03
Section 7(8)(a) of the Divorce Act 70 of 1979
Section 7(8)(a) of the Divorce Act empowers the court to order the allocation of pension interests in divorce proceedings.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the amendment to section 37D of the Pension Funds Act, specifically subsection (4)(d), clearly provides for retrospective application to divorce orders granted before 13 September 2007. This legislative change overrides the previous interpretation in Kirchner v Kirchner, which denied retrospective effect. The applicants, having divorced in 2002, are now entitled to have 100% of the first applicant's pension interest in the specified Old Mutual policy allocated to the second applicant as at the date of divorce. The court granted the relief sought, ordering the pension fund and its administrator to record and pay the allocated interest to the second applicant, and awarded costs against the first applicant.
Obiter and limits
- The court noted that authoritative commentary and practical guides support the retrospective application of section 37D(4)(d), providing clarity for practitioners in similar matters.
- The judgment highlights the importance of legislative amendments in correcting previous judicial interpretations that may have led to unjust outcomes for non-member spouses in divorce proceedings.
Court disposition
Application granted. The first applicant's pension interest in Old Mutual policy number 9041381 as at the date of divorce is allocated 100% to the second applicant. Costs awarded against the first applicant.
- 100% of the first applicant's pension interest in Old Mutual policy number 9041381 as at 15 August 2002 is allocated to the second applicant in terms of section 7(8)(a) of the Divorce Act 70 of 1979 read with section 37D of the Pension Funds Act 24 of 1956, as amended.
- The Registrar of this Court must immediately notify Old Mutual Insurance Company to record that 100% of the first applicant's pension interest in policy number 9041381 is payable to the second applicant.
- The administrator of the pension fund must, within one month of receiving such notification, provide written proof of such record to the Registrar.
- Old Mutual Insurance Company must, within sixty days of service of this order, pay the first applicant's pension interest in policy number 9041381 directly to the second applicant.
- The first applicant must pay the costs of this application.
Source and reliance status
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Judgment
VRYSTAATSE HOË HOF, BLOEMFONTEIN
REPUBLIEK VAN SUID-AFRIKA
Saak Nr. : 5259/2009
In die aansoek van:-
NICOLAI PETER NICOLAISEN 1ste Applikant
JUDITH ALETTA NICOLAISEN 2de Applikant
_____________
AANGEHOOR OP: 29 OKTOBER 2009
UITSPRAAK DEUR: A. KRUGER, R
GELEWER OP: 5 NOVEMBER 2009
[1] Applikante, wat in 2002 geskei is, doen aansoek om ân bevel ingevolge artikel 7(8) van die Wet op Egskeiding, 70 van 1979, saamgelees met artikel 37D van die Wet op Pensioenfondse, 24 van 1956, soos gewysig, dat eerste applikant 100% van die opbrengs van sy pensioenbelang in ân polis, soos op datum van egskeiding, aan tweede applikant laat toekom.
[2] Artikel 37D(1)(d) van die Wet op Pensioenfondse is bygevoeg deur artikel 28(b) van Wet 11 van 2007, wat op 13 September 2007 in werking getree het. KIRCHNER v KIRCHNER AND ANOTHER 2009 (4) SA 448 (W) het met artikel 37D(1)(d) gehandel soos wat dit op 10 Junie 2008 (toe die Kennisgewing van Mosie uitgereik is) gelees het. In KIRCHNER was die egskeiding op 7 Augustus 2007, dus voordat artikel 37D(1)(d) op 13 September 2007 in werking getree het en die hof beslis dat artikel 37D(1)(d) nie terugwerkende krag het nie en wys die aansoek af. Ná die KIRCHNER-beslissing is artikel 37D gewysig.
[3] Artikel 37D(4)(d) lees soos ingevoeg deur artikel 16(c) van Wet 22 van 2008 met ingang van 1 November 2008:
â(4) (a) By die toepassing van artikel 7 (8) (a) van die Wet op Egskeiding, 1979 (Wet No. 70 van 1979), word die gedeelte van die pensioenrente ingevolge ân egskeidingsbevel of bevel vir die ontbinding van ân gebruiklike huwelik aan die nie-lid eggenoot toegewys, geag die lid toe te val op die datum waarop die egskeidingsbevel of bevel vir die ontbinding van ân gebruiklike huwelik toegestaan word, en, by die skriftelike voorlegging van die hofbevel deur die nie-lid eggenoot â
.....
(d) Enige gedeelte van die pensioenrente toegewys aan die nie-lid eggenoot ingevolge ân egskeidingsbevel of bevel vir die ontbinding van ân gebruiklike huwelik toegestaan voor 13 September 2007 word by die toepassing van enige wet behalwe die Inkomstebelastingwet, 1962, met inbegrip van, maar nie beperk nie tot, artikel 7 (8) (a) van die Wet op Egskeiding, 1979, geag opgeloop te wees aan die lid op 13 September 2007 en moet ooreenkomstig paragrawe (a) en (b) betaal of oorgedra word.â
[4] Hierdie bewoording maak dit duidelik dat artikel 37D(4) terugwerkende krag het, wat die uitwerking van die KIRCHNER-saak neutraliseer â sien Schäfer, Family Law Service, Afdeling D, bl. 18 en 19 en Van Niekerk, A Practical Guide to Patrimonial Litigation in Divorce Actions, bl. 7-9.
[5] Die applikante is geregtig op die regshulp soos deur hul versoek.
[6] Bevel:
1. Een honderd persent (100%) van die eerste applikant se pensioenbelang in Ou Mutual polisnommer 9041381 soos op datum van egskeiding synde 15 Augustus 2002, word aan die tweede applikant toegewys in terme van die bepalings van artikel 7 (8) (a) van die Wet op Egskeiding, Wet 70 van 1979, saamgelees met die bepalings van artikel 37D van die Wet op Pensioenfondse van 1956, soos gewysig.
2. Die Griffier van hierdie Hof moet ooreenkomstig die bepalings van artikel 7 (8) (a) (ii) van die Wet op Egskeiding, Wet 70 van 1979, onverwyld die Ou Mutual
Versekeringsmaatskappy (âdie pensioenfondsâ) in kennis moet stel dat ân aantekening in sy rekords gemaak moet word dat:
2.1 een honderd persent (100%) van die eerste applikant se pensioenbelang in Ou Mutual polisnommer 9041381 aan die tweede applikant betaalbaar is.
2.2 die administrateur van daardie pensioenfonds, binne een maand na ontvangs van sodanige kennisgewing, skriftelike bewys van sodanige aantekening aan die Griffier moet lewer.
3. Die Ou Mutual Versekeringsmaatskappy binne sestig dae na die betekening op hom van hierdie bevel, die eerste applikant se pensioenbelang in Ou Mutual polisnommer 9041381, direk aan die tweede applikant moet betaal.
4. Die eerste applikant die koste van hierdie aansoek moet betaal.
____
KRUGER, R
Namens die applikante: Adv. C.A. Human
In opdrag van:
Vermaak & Dennis
BLOEMFONTEIN
/sp
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.