Download PDF

South Africa Judgment

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

P.S.M v M.M (Born R) (29257/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 409 (8 May 2024)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court found that, having considered the grounds of appeal and submissions from both parties, there is a reasonable prospect that another court may find the applicant entitled to a share in the respondent's pension interest. Therefore, leave to appeal should be granted to the Full Bench of the Division against order 3 dated 29 December 2023.

Court disposition

Leave to appeal granted to the Full Bench of this Division against order 3 dated 29 December 2023.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is granted to the Full Bench of this Division against order 3 dated 29 December 2023.
  • Costs will be costs on appeal.

02

Material facts

Parties

P[...] S[...] M[...]

Applicant Counsel: Adv T E Hlokwe

M[...] M[...] (Born R[...])

Respondent Counsel: M Fabricius

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Order 3 Dated 29 December 2023

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicant contended that the forfeiture order depriving him of 50% of the respondent's pension interest was incorrect and that he is entitled to a share in the pension interest held in the Government Employees Pension Fund. He argued that there are reasonable prospects that another court may reach a different conclusion.
Respondent
The respondent maintained that the forfeiture order was correctly granted and that the applicant is not entitled to any share in the pension interest. The respondent argued that there are no reasonable prospects of success on appeal and that the order should stand.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013

    Leave to appeal may only be granted if the court is of the opinion that the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success or there is some other compelling reason for the appeal to be heard.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court found that, having considered the grounds of appeal and submissions from both parties, there is a reasonable prospect that another court may find the applicant entitled to a share in the respondent's pension interest. Therefore, leave to appeal should be granted to the Full Bench of the Division against order 3 dated 29 December 2023.

Obiter and limits

  • The principles governing leave to appeal are well established and are summarised for convenience.
  • The judgment and order are published and distributed electronically in accordance with the directives of the Judge President.

Court disposition

Leave to appeal granted to the Full Bench of this Division against order 3 dated 29 December 2023.

  • The application for leave to appeal is granted to the Full Bench of this Division against order 3 dated 29 December 2023.
  • Costs will be costs on appeal.

Source and reliance status

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

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.

Source document

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Judgment

[2024] ZAGPPHC 409

SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy

IN THE HIGH COURT OF

SOUTH AFRICA

GAUTENG DIVISION,

PRETORIA

CASE NO: 29257/2022

(1) REPORTABLE: NO

(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO

(3) REVISED. NO

DATE: 8/05/2024

FLATELA J

In the matter between:

P[...] S[...] M[...]

Applicant

And

M[...] M[...] (BORN R[...]) Respondent

This matter has been heard in terms of the Directives of the Judge President of this Division dated 25 March 2020, 24 April 2020, and 11 May 2020. The judgment and order are accordingly published and distributed electronically. The date and time of hand-down is deemed to be 8 May 2024

JUDGMENT

FLATELA J

1. This is an application for leave to appeal brought by the Applicant against order number 3 granted by me on the 29 December 2023.

2. The applicant was a defendant in a divorce action that was brought by the respondent. I granted a forfeiture order against the applicant to the effect that applicant was to forfeit his claim of 50% of the plaintiff’s pension interest held in the Government Employees Pension Fund.

3. The principles governing the leave to appeal are well established, but I summarise them for convenience.

4. The test for the granting of leave to appeal is set out in section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 as follows:

“(1) Leave to appeal may only be given where the judge or judges concerned are of the opinion that:

(a) (i) the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success or

(ii) there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard, including conflicting judgments on the matter under consideration”

5. Having considered the grounds of appeal submissions from both counsel for the applicant and respondent, I am of the opinion that there is a reasonable prospect of success on appeal that another court may find that the applicant is entitled to a share in the Respondent’s s pension interest held in the Government Employees Pension Fund.

6. In the circumstances, I make the following order:

1. The application for leave to appeal is granted to the Full Bench of this Division against order 3 dated 29 December 2023.

2. Costs will be costs on appeal.

Judge of the High Court

Gauteng Division

Appearances

Counsel for Applicant: Adv T E Hlokwe Instructed by: C. J. Hlabangane Attorneys Counsel for Respondent: M Fabricius Instructed by: Shapiro & Ledwaba Inc. Date of hearing: 16 April 2024 Date of Judgement: 8 May 2024

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.