Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
S.A.V v H.J.V (Leave to Appeal) (2138/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1299 (29 November 2024)
The High Court granted leave to appeal only on the issue of the date of divorce for calculating the estate share, dismissing all other grounds.
R.V.B v J.V.B [2024] ZAFSHC 378; 2025 (4) SA 297 (FB) (19 November 2024)
High Court held that EB applies to pending divorce proceedings and allowed a spouse to amend her counter-claim to seek redistribution under section 7(3).
H.C.C v C.C (7225/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 758; 2025 (1) SA 426 (GP) (31 July 2024)
The court found that the defendant, as the primary caregiver and homemaker throughout the marriage, contributed indirectly to the maintenance and increase of the plaintiff's estate. The exclusion of the accrual system in the antenuptial contract does not preclude a redistribution order, especially in light of constitutional imperatives for substantive gender equality. The defendant's contributions, though typical of a traditional marriage, are sufficient under section 7(3) of the Divorce Act. The plaintiff's financial means are limited, but both parties must accept a reduced standard of livin…
Source excerpt
W.L v W.B.L (2022-015956) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1189 (15 September 2023)
High Court dismissed a rescission application seeking to undo a default divorce order so the applicant could pursue spousal maintenance and redistribution claims.
K.R.G v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (40023/21) [2022] ZAGPPHC 311; [2022] 3 All SA 58 (GP); 2022 (5) SA 478 (GP) (11 May 2022)
Section 7(3)(a) of the Divorce Act, which restricts the court's discretion to grant redistribution orders to marriages out of community of property entered into before 1 November 1984, constitutes unfair discrimination and violates section 9(3) of the Constitution. The time-bar arbitrarily excludes economically disadvantaged spouses married after that date from seeking just and equitable relief, despite similar circumstances to those married before the cut-off. The differentiation is not justified by any legitimate government purpose and perpetuates economic and gender-based inequality. The c…
Source excerpt
A.L (born K) v W.D.L (1307/2016) [2017] ZAECPEHC 26 (18 April 2017)
Interim maintenance and access were granted in a divorce matter, but a large contribution toward costs was refused; costs were taxed under Rule 43.
D.L.G v D.W.V.G (484/2014) [2016] ZAWCHC 19 (29 January 2016)
The appeal court found that the regional magistrate correctly applied section 7(3) of the Divorce Act, considering the wife's substantial contributions to the husband's estate and the overall circumstances of the marriage. The magistrate exercised her discretion properly, taking into account the relevant legal principles and factual findings, including the parties' respective estates, contributions, and compensation received during the marriage. The court rejected the appellant's argument that the trial court erred by applying a quasi-accrual approach, confirming that the discretion under sec…
Source excerpt
WT and Others v KT (933/2013) [2015] ZASCA 9; 2015 (3) SA 574 (SCA) (13 March 2015)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the assets of the WT Trust, established prior to the marriage and managed by appointed trustees, do not form part of the joint estate of the parties married in community of property. The respondent was never a beneficiary of the trust, nor did she provide the necessary capital for the acquisition of the trust property. The court found no factual or legal basis for the allegations of deceit or misrepresentation by the husband. The principles governing piercing the trust veneer were not applicable, as there was no unconscionable abuse or fraud, and the resp…
Source excerpt
B.B v J.S.B (607/2014) [2014] ZAECPEHC 33 (29 May 2014)
The applicant failed to establish a prima facie case for an anti-dissipation order. Her allegations were unsupported by primary facts and consisted largely of opinion and speculation. No evidence was presented that the respondent intended to dissipate or secrete assets to defeat her claim under section 7(3) of the Divorce Act. The respondent's explanation that the proceeds would be used to pay bona fide creditors was accepted, and the applicant could not dispute the existence of these debts. The application was improperly brought on an urgent, ex parte basis without justification, as there wa…
Source excerpt
Bormann v Bormann (13601/2011) [2012] ZAWCHC 101 (2 February 2012)
A divorce court granted the husband a redistribution order under section 7(3) of the Divorce Act, awarding him 50% of the net proceeds of the wife’s immovable property.
Explore more
