S v Nedbank Limited (5058/2019) [2020] ZALMPPHC 46 (11 June 2020)

S v Nedbank Limited (5058/2019) [2020] ZALMPPHC 46 (11 June 2020)

The court held that the applicant was not entitled to direct payment of 50% of the pension benefit from the respondent bank absent division of the joint estate by agreement or by a receiver. The interim and divorce orders did not entitle the applicant to the specific amount claimed, as division of the joint estate had not yet occurred. The applicant could not unilaterally claim a particular asset from the joint estate, and the bank was not obliged to pay the applicant without proper division. The application was dismissed as the applicant failed to make out a proper case for relief against either respondent.

Citation
[2020] ZALMPPHC 46
Parties
Applicant: S[….] W[….] S[….]; Respondent: Nedbank Limited; Respondent: M[….] D[….] S[….]
Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 June 2020
Case Number
5058/2019
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Payment of Preserved Pension Benefit Following Divorce Order
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
GC Muller
Legal Topics
Division of Joint Estate, Pension Interest in Divorce, Interim Interdict, Bank as Stakeholder
Family and Children Civil Procedure Division of Joint Estate Pension Interest in Divorce Interim Interdict Bank as Stakeholder

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S[….] W[….] S[….]

Applicant

Nedbank Limited

Respondent

M[….] D[….] S[….]

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Payment of Preserved Pension Benefit Following Divorce Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to direct payment of 50% of the pension benefit from the respondent bank without division of the joint estate.
  2. 2 Whether the interim and divorce orders entitle the applicant to the specific amount claimed.
  3. 3 Whether the bank is obliged to pay the applicant absent consent or a receiver's division of the estate.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant was not entitled to direct payment of 50% of the pension benefit from the respondent bank absent division of the joint estate by agreement or by a receiver. The interim and divorce orders did not entitle the applicant to the specific amount claimed, as division of the joint estate had not yet occurred. The applicant could not unilaterally claim a particular asset from the joint estate, and the bank was not obliged to pay the applicant without proper division. The application was dismissed as the applicant failed to make out a proper case for relief against either respondent.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.