Purnell v Purnell (576/91) [1993] ZASCA 22; 1993 (2) SA 662 (AD); [1993] 2 All SA 153 (A) (11 March 1993)

Purnell v Purnell (576/91) [1993] ZASCA 22; 1993 (2) SA 662 (AD); [1993] 2 All SA 153 (A) (11 March 1993)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Witwatersrand Local Division was competent to entertain the application to vary the original divorce maintenance order under section 8 of the Divorce Act. The subsequent maintenance order granted by the magistrate did not oust the jurisdiction of the High Court nor did it supersede the original divorce order. The respondent's chronic illness and permanent disability constituted a material change in circumstances justifying the removal of the time limitation on maintenance. The appeal was dismissed and the order of the Witwatersrand Local Division was upheld.

Citation
[1993] ZASCA 22
Parties
Appellant: David J. Purnell; Respondent: Lynette V.P. Purnell
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 March 1993
Case Number
576/91
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order of Witwatersrand Local Division Regarding Variation of Maintenance Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; order of Witwatersrand Local Division upheld.
Judges
Hoexter, Eksteen, F.H. Grosskopf, Goldstone, Krieger
Legal Topics
Variation of Maintenance Order, Divorce Act Section 8, Maintenance Act Application, Jurisdiction of High Court
Family and Children Civil Procedure Variation of Maintenance Order Divorce Act Section 8 Maintenance Act Application Jurisdiction of High Court

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

Parties

David J. Purnell

Appellant

Lynette V.P. Purnell

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order of Witwatersrand Local Division Regarding Variation of Maintenance Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Witwatersrand Local Division had jurisdiction to vary the maintenance order under section 8 of the Divorce Act.
  2. 2 Whether the maintenance order granted by the magistrate under the Maintenance Act affected the original divorce order.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent was entitled to a variation of the maintenance order due to chronic illness and permanent disability.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Witwatersrand Local Division was competent to entertain the application to vary the original divorce maintenance order under section 8 of the Divorce Act. The subsequent maintenance order granted by the magistrate did not oust the jurisdiction of the High Court nor did it supersede the original divorce order. The respondent's chronic illness and permanent disability constituted a material change in circumstances justifying the removal of the time limitation on maintenance. The appeal was dismissed and the order of the Witwatersrand Local Division was upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; order of Witwatersrand Local Division upheld.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • The order of the Witwatersrand Local Division varying the maintenance order is confirmed.