Qonqo v Qonqo (763/2010) [2010] ZAFSHC 107 (11 March 2010)

Qonqo v Qonqo (763/2010) [2010] ZAFSHC 107 (11 March 2010)

The court found that the respondent's contention that the applicant receives financial support from her boyfriend was speculative and unsupported by evidence. The mere fact of cohabitation does not relieve the respondent of his duty of support unless it is proven that the applicant receives financial support from her paramour, which was not established. The applicant's needs were accepted as at least R5,000 per month, consistent with her previous income and the parties' agreement. The court declined to decide the issue of the motor vehicle pending the outcome of the spoliation proceedings in the magistrate's court. There was no dispute regarding the need for a contribution towards costs,...

Citation
[2010] ZAFSHC 107
Parties
Applicant: Nyefolo Daphney Qonqo; Respondent: Eliea Jan Qonqo
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 March 2010
Case Number
763/2010
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Rule 43 Application for Interim Maintenance and Contribution to Costs Pending Divorce
Outcome
Application granted: interim maintenance and contribution towards costs ordered in favour of the applicant.
Judges
Lekale, AJ
Legal Topics
Interim Maintenance, Contribution to Costs, Rule 43 Applications, Duty of Support, Cohabitation and Support
Family and Children Civil Procedure Interim Maintenance Contribution to Costs Rule 43 Applications Duty of Support Cohabitation and Support

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nyefolo Daphney Qonqo

Applicant

Eliea Jan Qonqo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Rule 43 Application for Interim Maintenance and Contribution to Costs Pending Divorce

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to interim maintenance pending the divorce action.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to a contribution towards costs of the divorce action.
  3. 3 Whether cohabitation with a boyfriend relieves the respondent of his duty of support.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's contention that the applicant receives financial support from her boyfriend was speculative and unsupported by evidence. The mere fact of cohabitation does not relieve the respondent of his duty of support unless it is proven that the applicant receives financial support from her paramour, which was not established. The applicant's needs were accepted as at least R5,000 per month, consistent with her previous income and the parties' agreement. The court declined to decide the issue of the motor vehicle pending the outcome of the spoliation proceedings in the magistrate's court. There was no dispute regarding the need for a contribution towards costs,...

Court Disposition

Application granted: interim maintenance and contribution towards costs ordered in favour of the applicant.

Orders

  • The respondent is directed to pay R5,000.00 to the applicant pending finalisation of the divorce action, effective 1 April 2010 and monthly thereafter on or before the 7th day of each succeeding month.
  • The respondent is directed to pay R3,500.00 to the applicant as contribution towards the costs of the divorce action at the rate of R500.00 per month, commencing 1 April 2010 and monthly thereafter on or before the 7th day of each succeeding month.