P S v T S (A3122/2017) [2018] ZAGPJHC 608 (29 October 2018)

P S v T S (A3122/2017) [2018] ZAGPJHC 608 (29 October 2018)

The court found that the respondent was not aware of the existence of two pension funds and that the appellant deliberately withheld this information. The settlement agreement was concluded on the basis of the actuarial report, which reflected a total figure for both funds. The respondent and her attorney believed her 40% share amounted to approximately R1 million, as presented during settlement negotiations. The absence of a specific monetary figure in the agreement did not invalidate the respondent's entitlement, as the intention was for the pension fund to calculate the amount due. The court held that there was no agreement to exclude the Johannesburg Municipal Pension Fund and...

Citation
[2018] ZAGPJHC 608
Parties
Appellant: P S; Respondent: T S
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 October 2018
Case Number
A3122/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Variation of Divorce Settlement Agreement
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Twala, Matsemela
Legal Topics
Divorce Settlement, Pension Fund Interest, Variation of Court Order, Interpretation of Contracts
Family and Children Civil Procedure Divorce Settlement Pension Fund Interest Variation of Court Order Interpretation of Contracts

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P S

Appellant

T S

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Variation of Divorce Settlement Agreement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent was entitled to 40% of both pension fund interests or only the City of Johannesburg Pension Fund.
  2. 2 Whether the settlement agreement excluded the Johannesburg Municipal Pension Fund.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent was misled or lacked knowledge of the existence of two pension funds.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent was not aware of the existence of two pension funds and that the appellant deliberately withheld this information. The settlement agreement was concluded on the basis of the actuarial report, which reflected a total figure for both funds. The respondent and her attorney believed her 40% share amounted to approximately R1 million, as presented during settlement negotiations. The absence of a specific monetary figure in the agreement did not invalidate the respondent's entitlement, as the intention was for the pension fund to calculate the amount due. The court held that there was no agreement to exclude the Johannesburg Municipal Pension Fund and...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.