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
M.C.M v M.S.M (Appeal) (HCA16/2024) [2025] ZALMPPHC 153 (11 August 2025)
The High Court dismissed an appeal against forfeiture of a respondent’s pension interest in a divorce, holding the appellant’s misconduct justified the order.
P.N v D.N (10481/2018) [2025] ZAWCHC 335 (6 August 2025)
The High Court granted divorce, refused forfeiture of benefits, and ordered an equal division of the joint estate after finding the plaintiff's gambling was not proven to be substantial misconduct.
M.J.L v L.O.L (22341/19 ; A288/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 331 (27 March 2025)
The court found that the defendant, Mrs L.O.L, satisfied the requirements for a partial forfeiture order under Section 9(1) of the Divorce Act. The evidence established that the plaintiff, Mr L.J.L, would be unduly benefited if the forfeiture order was not granted, as he failed to contribute to the acquisition and maintenance of the immovable property and did not use his pension benefit for the joint estate. The court distinguished the facts from Phokobye, noting that the forfeiture claim was properly ventilated in the divorce proceedings following partial rescission of the proprietary order.…
Source excerpt
S.J.M v S.J.K (034304/2023) [2025] ZAGPJHC 92 (7 February 2025)
Divorce case on section 9(1) forfeiture led to a partial forfeiture of the defendant’s GEPF pension interest, with the plaintiff awarded 20%.
J.C.T v S.T (2019/22316) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1123 (31 October 2024)
Divorce judgment on forfeiture under section 9 of the Divorce Act, granting forfeiture of investment proceeds against the husband but not the house or vehicle.
N.L.M v G.C.M (4351/2022) [2024] ZAMPMBHC 74; - (30 September 2024)
The court found that the Defendant failed to provide evidence that the Plaintiff would be unduly benefited if forfeiture was not granted. Both parties contributed to the joint estate over a substantial marriage duration of nearly 15 years, and there was no proof that the Plaintiff's conduct diminished the estate or justified forfeiture. The Defendant's allegations regarding the Plaintiff's HIV status and supposed infidelity were unsupported by evidence and did not establish grounds for forfeiture. The breakdown of the marriage was attributed to mutual loss of affection, physical abuse by the…
Source excerpt
K.P.S v M.D.S (010556/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 981 (13 September 2024)
The High Court granted a divorce, awarded primary care of the minor children to the plaintiff, and ordered the defendant to forfeit marital benefits.
A.R.S v M.S.S (Leave to Appeal) (7305/2021) [2024] ZALMPPHC 128 (9 September 2024)
The High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal against a divorce judgment, finding no reasonable prospect of success under section 17 of the Superior Courts Act.
T.P v L.M (HCA30/2023) [2024] ZALMPPHC 89 (12 August 2024)
The court found that both parties contributed to the breakdown of the marriage through mutual non-disclosure and that neither party's conduct amounted to substantial misconduct. The duration of the marriage (8.5 years) was not so long as to preclude forfeiture, but also not so short as to justify it solely on that basis. The respondent made both financial and non-financial contributions, including homemaking and supporting the appellant's business. The appellant failed to prove that the respondent would be unduly benefited by an equal division of the joint estate. The court emphasised that fo…
Source excerpt
T.S.S v M.A.S - Appeal (HCA04/2023) [2024] ZALMPPHC 69 (22 July 2024)
Appeal over forfeiture of a spouse’s share of pension interest in divorce proceedings dismissed; the court found no basis to disturb the trial court’s discretion.
Explore more
