S.L.M. v H.A.C (18281/2021) [2025] ZAGPJHC 687 (19 June 2025)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
18281/2021
Judge
NTLAMA-MAKHANYA AJ
High Court divorce judgment ordering payment on equal division of a joint estate, plus levy reimbursement and sale of timeshare units, after rejecting tax-based objections.
H.G.W v M.W (nee B[...]) (RCC/MOS:84/23; A207/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 140 (26 March 2025)
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Case number
RCC/MOS:84/23; A207/2024
Judges
P. S. Van Zyl, J. Lekhuleni
The appeal was upheld because the Mossel Bay Regional Court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the divorce action. The respondent failed to plead or prove that she or the appellant was domiciled or ordinarily resident within the court's jurisdiction at the time of institution of the action. The regional court erred by inferring jurisdiction from insufficient pleadings and by considering material not forming part of the pleadings or evidence, such as the Family Advocate's report. Jurisdiction in divorce actions must be established by clear allegations and supporting evidence in the pleadings, a…
J.V v B.V (43696/2019) [2024] ZAGPJHC 667 (15 July 2024)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
43696/2019
Judge
F Bezuidenhout
The court found that the applicant's affidavits, although commissioned via video conference, were sufficiently authenticated and that no prejudice was suffered by the respondent, who engaged fully with the merits. The point in limine was dismissed. On the separation of issues, the court held that the only outstanding issue between the parties is the calculation of accrual, and that granting a decree of divorce would facilitate the computation and curtail unnecessary litigation. The respondent's concerns about prejudice were not substantiated, as effective remedies such as the appointment of a…
M.P v P.G.P (52101/2018) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1845 (6 November 2023)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
52101/2018
Judge
K Strydom
The court found that the marriage had irretrievably broken down and that the interests of the minor children were adequately protected through settlement and the involvement of the Family Advocate and social workers. Due to the defendant's failure to fully disclose his financial status, including undisclosed bank accounts, the court was unable to make an equitable order regarding the division of the joint estate without further investigation. Consequently, the appointment of a liquidator was necessary to ensure a fair division. The costs of the divorce, including the liquidator's fees, were a…
I.N.P v N.P (9117/2023) [2023] ZAWCHC 210 (28 July 2023)
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Case number
9117/2023
Judge
Van Zyl
The court found that the respondent is permanently resident in Portugal and is a foreign peregrinus. The funds and property in question are located outside South Africa, and the acts sought to be interdicted would occur in foreign jurisdictions. The court held that it does not have jurisdiction to grant interdictory relief against a respondent who is neither resident nor domiciled within its jurisdiction, and where the subject matter of the relief is situated abroad. The respondent's submission to jurisdiction in the divorce action does not extend to separate proceedings for interdicts instit…
T.K.G v M.N (44477/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 418 (4 May 2023)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
44477/2021
Judge
Merchak
The applicant failed to establish a prima facie case or provide sufficient information to justify the separation of the divorce decree from ancillary issues under Rule 33(4). The court found that the applicant's convenience alone is insufficient; he did not demonstrate that separation would be convenient or fair to the respondent or the court. Separation would prejudice the respondent by depriving her of rights to maintenance, remedies under Rule 43, and her claim for forfeiture of benefits. Arrangements for the dependent children were not satisfactorily addressed, as required by section 6(1)…
CL v CJL (3437 / 2022) [2022] ZAWCHC 127; 2023 (1) SA 513 (WCC) (17 June 2022)
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Case number
3437 / 2022
Judge
Wille, J
The court held that while parents retain a duty to maintain adult-dependent children who are not self-supporting, the right to claim maintenance for such children in divorce proceedings is procedurally complex. The applicant may claim for expenses incurred in supporting an adult-dependent child living in the common home, but specific claims for tertiary education, equestrian expenses, and a new vehicle are not competent unless the adult-dependent child is joined or files a confirmatory affidavit. The court found the facts insufficient to justify orders for these specific expenses and dismisse…
A.V.W v S.V.W and Others (3118/2021) [2022] ZAWCHC 74 (20 April 2022)
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Case number
3118/2021
Judge
De Wet
The court found that the first defendant raised bona fide disputes regarding the adequacy of maintenance for the minor child, the enforceability of the consent paper, and the validity of the waiver of spousal maintenance. The court emphasized its statutory duty under the Divorce Act to ensure maintenance arrangements for minor children are satisfactory and that settlement agreements in divorce matters are subject to judicial scrutiny. Given the lack of evidence to determine whether the agreement served the best interests of the minor child and the unresolved issues regarding trust property an…
Camilleri v De Graaf N.O (In his capacity as the Executor of The Estate Late Raymond Camilleri) (7310/2017) [2021] ZAWCHC 264 (17 December 2021)
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Case number
7310/2017
Judge
Nziweni
The court found that the wording of clauses 9.4 and 9.7 of the Consent Paper is clear and unambiguous. The phrase 'at the time of his withdrawal from the Fund' refers to the event when the deceased ceased membership and accessed his pension benefits, which occurred upon retirement and the subsequent purchase of a living annuity. The 'nett entitlement' means the gross benefit less taxes at the time of withdrawal. The Defendant's alternative interpretations were rejected as unbusinesslike and unsupported by the contract or factual matrix. The Plaintiff is entitled to half of the nett entitlemen…