V.M v Z.M and Another (1421/2019) [2020] ZAECGHC 117 (13 September 2020)

V.M v Z.M and Another (1421/2019) [2020] ZAECGHC 117 (13 September 2020)

The court found that the rule nisi granted on 14 May 2019 was expressly extended sine die by order on 18 June 2019, and thus remained valid until discharged or confirmed. On the merits, the applicant failed to establish the requirements for an anti-dissipation interdict. There was no evidence that the first respondent intended to dissipate assets to defeat the applicant’s or the children’s claims, nor that he acted mala fide. The first respondent demonstrated willingness to pay school fees and maintain the children, and the applicant did not show irreparable harm would result if the funds were released. The court held that freezing the pension funds would not serve the best interests of...

Citation
[2020] ZAECGHC 117
Parties
Applicant: V.M; Respondent: Z.M; Respondent: Alexander Forbes (Pty) Ltd
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 September 2020
Case Number
1421/2019
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Return Date of Rule Nisi; Opposed Motion for Final Interdict
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs; rule nisi discharged.
Judges
N.R. Mtshabe
Legal Topics
Anti Dissipation Interdict, Maintenance of Children, Rule Nisi, Interim Interdict, Best Interests of Child
Family and Children Civil Procedure Anti Dissipation Interdict Maintenance of Children Rule Nisi Interim Interdict Best Interests of Child

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

Parties

V.M

Applicant

Z.M

Respondent

Alexander Forbes (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Return Date of Rule Nisi; Opposed Motion for Final Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the rule nisi granted on 14 May 2019 and extended sine die remains valid or has lapsed.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to an anti-dissipation interdict restraining the second respondent from releasing pension funds to the first respondent pending divorce proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant established the requirements for an interim interdict, particularly irreparable harm and mala fide intent by the first respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the rule nisi granted on 14 May 2019 was expressly extended sine die by order on 18 June 2019, and thus remained valid until discharged or confirmed. On the merits, the applicant failed to establish the requirements for an anti-dissipation interdict. There was no evidence that the first respondent intended to dissipate assets to defeat the applicant’s or the children’s claims, nor that he acted mala fide. The first respondent demonstrated willingness to pay school fees and maintain the children, and the applicant did not show irreparable harm would result if the funds were released. The court held that freezing the pension funds would not serve the best interests of...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs; rule nisi discharged.

Orders

  • The applicant is condoned for the late filing of the replying affidavit.
  • The application is dismissed with costs.