South Africa Case Law

K.P.S v M.D.S (010556/2022)

K.P.S v M.D.S (010556/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1012 (1 October 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

010556/2022

Judge

PM Mabuse

The court found that the defendant committed adultery, which was the primary cause of the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. The defendant failed to contribute financially to the household, did not pay for the children's education or municipal accounts, and used joint assets for personal benefit. The plaintiff proved at least two jurisdictional factors under section 9(1) of the Divorce Act: substantial misconduct and circumstances leading to the breakdown. The court exercised its discretion to grant forfeiture of the benefits arising from the marriage in community of property, awarding…

Source excerpt

• Forfeiture Of Benefits
• Maintenance Of Children
• Division Of Joint Estate
• Adultery
• Parental Rights And Responsibilities

K.P.S v M.D.S (010556/2022)

K.P.S v M.D.S (010556/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 981 (13 September 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

010556/2022

Judge

Mabuse

The High Court granted a divorce, awarded primary care of the minor children to the plaintiff, and ordered the defendant to forfeit marital benefits.

• Divorce Act Section 9
• Forfeiture Of Benefits
• Adultery
• Maintenance Of Children
• Division Of Joint Estate
• Divorce-act-section-9

N.E.M (born M) v R.L.D.M (2220/2021)

N.E.M (born M) v R.L.D.M (2220/2021) [2024] ZAFSHC 28 (2 February 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

2220/2021

Judge

Mthimunye AJ

In this divorce action, the court granted divorce and division of the joint estate, but refused forfeiture of the plaintiff’s pension benefits.

• Divorce Act Section 9
• Forfeiture Of Patrimonial Benefits
• Division Of Joint Estate
• Adultery
• Costs In Divorce
• Pension Interest

S.K.J v P.J and Another (4918/2012)

S.K.J v P.J and Another (4918/2012) [2016] ZAKZDHC 33 (22 July 2016)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

4918/2012

Judge

Masipa

The court found that the plaintiff's communications regarding the alleged adulterous relationship were made in the context of family and close friendship, without intent to injure the second defendant's reputation. The publication to the plaintiff's mother was for the purpose of explaining the breakdown of his marriage, and the publication to the second defendant's wife was a matter of courtesy prior to legal action. There was no evidence of animus iniuriandi or actual injury to reputation. Furthermore, societal norms regarding adultery have shifted, and such allegations no longer carry the p…

Source excerpt

• Defamation
• Adultery
• Animus Iniuriandi
• Wrongfulness
• Public Policy Shift

DE v RH

The adultery-based delictual claim for contumelia and loss of consortium no longer meets the requirement of wrongfulness because, in light of constitutional norms, public policy and changing social attitudes, it is not reasonable to impose delictual liability on a third party for adultery. The competing rights of the adulterous spouse and the third party, especially privacy, freedom of association, and freedom and security of the person, outweigh the non-adulterous spouse’s dignity interest in preserving this cause of action.

Source excerpt

• Adultery
• Actio iniuriarum
• Loss of consortium
• Contumelia
• Development of common law
• Wrongfulness

P.V.R v A.V.Z.M (2700/08)

P.V.R v A.V.Z.M (2700/08) [2014] ZAECPEHC 97; 2015 (3) SA 376 (ECP) (17 December 2014)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth

Case number

2700/08

Judge

E Revelas

The court found that the plaintiff's version of events was more probable and credible than the defendant's. The evidence established that the defendant engaged in oral sex with the plaintiff's wife, which constituted adultery under South African law. The court rejected the defendant's argument that oral sex does not amount to adultery, holding that a narrow definition of sexual intercourse would be absurd and unfair, particularly in light of constitutional equality. The court adopted a broader definition, consistent with developments in criminal law and comparative jurisprudence, and conclude…

Source excerpt

• Adultery
• Loss Of Consortium
• Iniuria
• Damages
• Definition Of Sexual Intercourse

R.D.S v C.V.D.W (12537/12)

R.D.S v C.V.D.W (12537/12) [2014] ZAGPPHC 787 (2 October 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

12537/12

Judge

Msimeki

The High Court awarded a wife R85,000 for adultery and alienation of affection after finding the defendant knowingly interfered with her marriage.

• Adultery
• Alienation Of Affection
• Loss Of Comfort And Society
• Damages Quantification
• Alienation-of-affection
• Damages

M.S.R v P.P.R and Another (20741/2011)

M.S.R v P.P.R and Another (20741/2011) [2014] ZAGPPHC 505 (14 May 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

20741/2011

Judge

Hiemstra AJ

High Court divorce judgment refusing forfeiture of patrimonial benefits, with maintenance and child-contact orders made.

• Divorce
• Forfeiture Of Patrimonial Benefits
• Maintenance Of Children
• Adultery
• Parental Responsibilities
• Domestic Violence

Sebidi v Thobejane (36432/2012)

Sebidi v Thobejane (36432/2012) [2014] ZAGPPHC 57 (21 February 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

36432/2012

Judge

K E Matojane

The High Court refused a claim alleging adultery with the plaintiff’s wife, holding that the plaintiff relied on inadmissible hearsay and failed to prove the case on a balance of probabilities.

• Adultery
• Contumelia
• Hearsay Evidence
• Balance Of Probabilities
• Hearsay-evidence
• Balance-of-probabilities

Erasmus v Heine (39407/2010)

Erasmus v Heine (39407/2010) [2013] ZAGPPHC 11 (28 January 2013)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

39407/2010

Judge

L I Vorster

The court found that the plaintiff had proved, on a balance of probabilities, that the defendant intentionally led astray the plaintiff's wife, resulting in the alienation of her affection and the breakdown of the marriage. The evidence, including photographs, emails, and phone records, supported the existence of a romantic relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff's wife prior to the dissolution of the marriage. The defendant's denial of sexual intimacy was rejected as improbable given the escalating romantic conduct. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to a composite a…

Source excerpt

• Adultery
• Alienation Of Affection
• Loss Of Consortium
• Quantum Of Damages