South Africa Case Law

M.V v W.V (2022/055028)

M.V v W.V (2022/055028) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1457 (14 December 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2022/055028

Judge

Strijdom

The court found that the respondent had not complied with his contractual obligations under the settlement agreement, which required him to purchase a vehicle of not less than R80,000 and register it in the applicant's name. The respondent's provision of vehicles for the applicant's use did not satisfy the specific requirements of clauses 2.2, 2.3, and 2.5 of the agreement. Clause 2.4 was interpreted as an interim measure, not a substitute for the main obligation. The applicant established a clear right, infringement of that right, and the absence of an adequate alternative remedy. Accordingl…

Source excerpt

• Settlement Agreement Enforcement
• Final Interdict
• Divorce Proprietary Consequences

Munthry v Munthry (2771/2012)

Munthry v Munthry (2771/2012) [2018] ZAKZDHC 47 (31 July 2018)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

2771/2012

Judge

Henriques

High Court enforcement of a settlement agreement: the respondent was ordered to pay R3.5 million, transfer property, and pay costs.

• Settlement Agreement Enforcement
• Specific Performance
• Divorce Proprietary Consequences
• Interest On Judgment Debt
• Settlement-agreement-enforcement
• Specific-performance

J.M v K.M (2771/2012)

J.M v K.M (2771/2012) [2018] ZAKZDHC 38 (31 July 2018)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

2771/2012

Judge

Henriques

The court enforced a settlement agreement, ordering payment of R3.5 million, interest, transfer of property, and costs against the respondent.

• Settlement Agreement Enforcement
• Specific Performance
• Divorce Proprietary Consequences
• Transfer Of Property
• Interest On Judgment Debt
• Costs Award

R.M v L.M and Others (9727/2013)

R.M v L.M and Others (9727/2013) [2013] ZAKZDHC 49 (23 September 2013)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

9727/2013

Judge

Thatcher AJ

Urgent application for an interim interdict over sale proceeds was dismissed after the court found no clear right and the balance of convenience favoured the respondent.

• Divorce Proprietary Consequences
• Interim Interdict
• Joinder Of Parties
• Balance Of Convenience
• Interim-interdict
• Divorce-property-dispute

Dubs v Dubs (20255/2012)

Dubs v Dubs (20255/2012) [2012] ZAWCHC 158 (23 August 2012)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

20255/2012

Judge

Le Grange

Divorce dispute over two co-owned properties and alleged joint ventures. The court rejected the joint venture claim for No. 45, but upheld the plaintiff’s claim concerning No. 43.

• Division Of Co Owned Property
• Joint Venture Dispute
• Donation Vs Sale
• Divorce Proprietary Consequences
• Divorce-property-dispute
• Joint-venture

Sadiku v Sadiku (30498/06)

Sadiku v Sadiku (30498/06) [2007] ZAGPHC 1 (26 January 2007)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

30498/06

Judge

Van Rooyen

The court found that the marriage was governed by Nigerian law, which does not recognize community of property. The defendant failed to establish that South African law should apply or that the plaintiff had acquired a South African domicile at the time of marriage. There was no evidence of an express agreement to alter the applicable law. The defendant's belief in co-ownership was not supported by law or fact, and no bona fide defence to eviction was established. The procedural requirements under PIE were met, and the eviction was granted. However, considering the defendant's genuine belief…

Source excerpt

• Divorce Proprietary Consequences
• Lex Domicilii
• Eviction Under Pie
• Community Of Property
• Choice Of Law
• Summary Judgment