P v P (A201/2013) [2014] ZAFSHC 101 (19 June 2014)

P v P (A201/2013) [2014] ZAFSHC 101 (19 June 2014)

The appellant failed to provide a full and satisfactory explanation for the delay in prosecuting the appeal and did not address the prospects of success, which are essential for condonation. The appellant also failed to prove the nature and extent of any benefit to the respondent from the marriage, which is a prerequisite for a forfeiture order under section 9(1) of the Divorce Act. The evidence did not establish that the respondent would be unduly benefited, nor did it show that the breakdown of the marriage was solely attributable to her misconduct. The application for condonation and the appeal on forfeiture were therefore refused.

Citation
[2014] ZAFSHC 101
Parties
Appellant: N[...] W[...] P[...]; Respondent: M[...] H[...] P[...]
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 June 2014
Case Number
A201/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Forfeiture Order in Divorce Action; Application for Condonation for Late Prosecution of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; application for condonation refused with costs.
Judges
Williams, Mbhele
Legal Topics
Forfeiture of Benefits, Condonation, Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage, Division of Joint Estate, Misconduct in Divorce
Family and Children Civil Procedure Forfeiture of Benefits Condonation Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage Division of Joint Estate Misconduct in Divorce

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

N[...] W[...] P[...]

Appellant

M[...] H[...] P[...]

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Forfeiture Order in Divorce Action; Application for Condonation for Late Prosecution of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation should be granted for the late prosecution of the appeal and late filing of the record.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant established grounds for forfeiture of the benefits of the marriage in community of property.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent would be unduly benefited if forfeiture is not granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to provide a full and satisfactory explanation for the delay in prosecuting the appeal and did not address the prospects of success, which are essential for condonation. The appellant also failed to prove the nature and extent of any benefit to the respondent from the marriage, which is a prerequisite for a forfeiture order under section 9(1) of the Divorce Act. The evidence did not establish that the respondent would be unduly benefited, nor did it show that the breakdown of the marriage was solely attributable to her misconduct. The application for condonation and the appeal on forfeiture were therefore refused.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; application for condonation refused with costs.

Orders

  • The application for condonation is refused with costs.