South Africa Case Law

E.L v Verster-Roos Incorporated (Pty) Ltd (25888/2021)

E.L v Verster-Roos Incorporated (Pty) Ltd (25888/2021) [2023] ZAGPPHC 634 (31 July 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

25888/2021

Judge

H G A Snyman

The court found that the plaintiff's particulars of claim failed to disclose a cause of action. The payment of the pension fund to the husband did not constitute damages to the plaintiff, as the pension interest remains an asset of the joint estate under the Divorce Act. No facts were pleaded to establish a right to freeze the pension fund or to satisfy the requirements for interdictory relief. The plaintiff's argument that alienation could be proven at trial was rejected, as this would constitute a different cause of action than pleaded. Accordingly, both grounds of exception were upheld, an…

Source excerpt

• Exception To Pleadings
• Breach Of Contract
• Damages Calculation
• Divorce Act Interpretation

M N v F N (714/2018)

M N v F N (714/2018) [2019] ZASCA 185; 2020 (2) SA 410 (SCA) (3 December 2019)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

714/2018

Judges

Petse, Leach, Swain, Mbatha, Dolamo

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the reference to 'pension fund' in the divorce order, interpreted in the context of the Divorce Act and Pension Funds Act, included both the pension and provident fund sections of the University of Limpopo Retirement Fund. The statutory definitions and the object of providing annuities or lump sum payments encompass both types of funds. No variation of the original order was necessary; a declaratory order sufficed to clarify entitlement. The fund administrator's role was administrative, and non-joinder was not fatal, especially as the administrator abided…

Source excerpt

• Divorce Act Interpretation
• Pension Interest Assignment
• Provident Fund Inclusion
• Clean Break Principle

Mmotlana v Manyane and Another (61254/14)

Mmotlana v Manyane and Another (61254/14) [2015] ZAGPPHC 442 (22 June 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

61254/14

Judge

Dewrance

The court found that it had jurisdiction because the second respondent, the Government Employees Pension Fund, is domiciled within its area and the relief sought requires action within this jurisdiction. However, the application for condonation was dismissed due to insufficient reasons and weak prospects of success, as the applicant failed to identify the applicable legislation and did not seek condonation in her notice of motion. On the merits, the court held that the divorce order did not specifically assign a pension interest to the applicant as required by section 7(8) of the Divorce Act…

Source excerpt

• Division Of Joint Estate
• Pension Interest
• Condonation
• Jurisdiction
• Divorce Act Interpretation

F.R v F.R (Born C.C.R) and Others (14770/2011)

F.R v F.R (Born C.C.R) and Others (14770/2011) [2015] ZAWCHC 6; [2015] 2 All SA 352 (WCC) (29 January 2015)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

14770/2011

Judge

Bremridge

The court held that, for purposes of South African law, the Islamic marriage between the Plaintiff and First Defendant was not validly contracted. However, the existence of the First Defendant's prior civil marriage does not constitute a bar to the Plaintiff's claim for proprietary relief arising from her Islamic marriage. The court relied on Constitutional Court authority, particularly Daniels v Campbell and Hassam v Jacobs, which extended statutory protections to spouses in Muslim marriages, including polygamous unions. The court found that the Divorce Act's reference to 'marriage' should b…

Source excerpt

• Recognition Of Muslim Marriages
• Polygamous Marriage
• Proprietary Consequences
• Maintenance
• Divorce Act Interpretation

M v M (2014/3044A)

M v M (2014/3044A) [2014] ZAGPJHC 296 (29 October 2014)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2014/3044A

Judges

Sutherland, Dewrance

The magistrate erred in his interpretation and application of sections 7(7), 7(8)(a)(i), and 9 of the Divorce Act. He found no grounds for forfeiture but nevertheless ordered the respondent to receive only 25% of the appellant's pension interest, which was inconsistent and legally incorrect. The respondent was entitled to a half share of the appellant's pension interest as part of the joint estate, unless a proper forfeiture order was made under section 9. The magistrate's reliance on the respondent's conduct during litigation was misplaced, as substantial misconduct under section 9 must rela…

Source excerpt

• Division Of Joint Estate
• Forfeiture Of Patrimonial Benefits
• Pension Interest
• Divorce Act Interpretation

Steyn v Steyn (6427/2010)

Steyn v Steyn (6427/2010) [2010] ZAWCHC 224 (27 October 2010)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

6427/2010

Judge

P.A.L. Gamble

The court held that a civil partnership concluded in England under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, which is legally recognized in that jurisdiction and has all the hallmarks of a marriage, should be accepted as a valid and binding civil partnership in South Africa according to the lex loci celebrationis principle. The Divorce Act is the appropriate statute for dissolving such partnerships, and the term 'marriage' in the Divorce Act must be interpreted purposively to include registered foreign same-sex marriages or civil unions/partnerships that are lawful in the country where they were conclu…

Source excerpt

• Civil Union Act
• Foreign Same Sex Marriage
• Divorce Act Interpretation
• Matrimonial Property Regime

Protektor Preservation Pension Fund v Bellars and Others (4913/2008)

Protektor Preservation Pension Fund v Bellars and Others (4913/2008) [2008] ZAKZHC 108; 2009 (4) SA 455 (D) (24 July 2008)

Court

High Courts - Kwazulu Natal

Case number

4913/2008

Judge

Levinsohn

The court interpreted “pension interest” under the Divorce Act to include a preservation fund member’s after-tax withdrawal benefit at the date of divorce.

• Divorce Act Interpretation
• Pension Interest
• Preservation Fund
• Declaratory Relief
• Divorce-act-interpretation
• Pension-interest