South Africa Case Law

G.J.W v L.W (2023-114308)

G.J.W v L.W (2023-114308) [2024] ZAGPPHC 823 (8 August 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2023-114308

Judge

Labuschagne AJ

The court found that the applicant failed to establish a case for confirmation of the interim anti-dissipation order. The respondent's intentions regarding the net proceeds of the Mooikloof property were consistent and focused on the children's education, with the balance available for accrual claims. There was no evidence of an intention to dissipate assets to defeat the applicant's claim. The respondent has sufficient assets to meet any accrual claim, and the applicant's fear of dissipation was unfounded. The interim order was overbroad, as the applicant's accrual claim at the time was limi…

Source excerpt

• Accrual System
• Anti Dissipation Interdict
• Divorce Proceedings
• Forfeiture Of Accrual
• Maintenance And Education
• Interim Relief

L.M (born M) v S.P.M

L.M (born M) v S.P.M [2023] ZAGPPHC 122; 56859/2021;26859/20221 (21 February 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

56859/2021

Judge

Swanepoel

The High Court granted divorce and ordered the husband to forfeit all accrual benefits, finding substantial misconduct and an undue benefit.

• Divorce Act Section 9
• Forfeiture Of Accrual
• Parental Rights And Responsibilities
• Maintenance
• Division Of Patrimonial Benefits
• Divorce

N.C.O and Another v D.O and Another (A244/2019)

N.C.O and Another v D.O and Another (A244/2019) [2020] ZAWCHC 35 (12 May 2020)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A244/2019

Judges

J Cloete, L Nuku, E D Wille

The court found that a property partnership existed between the parties, encompassing the P Street property, the guesthouse business, and the Digteby property, based on their conduct, communications, and mutual intention to build collective value. The plaintiff was entitled to 50% of the net partnership assets, and the partnership was ordered to be liquidated by an independent liquidator. The plaintiff's entitlement to personal maintenance was established due to her age, health, and lack of earning capacity, with the quantum set at R10,000 per month, escalating annually with inflation. The du…

Source excerpt

• Matrimonial Property Act
• Property Partnership
• Maintenance Award
• Eviction Application
• Liquidation Of Partnership
• Forfeiture Of Accrual

S.S v W.S (DIV179/2016)

S.S v W.S (DIV179/2016) [2017] ZANWHC 36 (22 June 2017)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

DIV179/2016

Judge

Kgoele

The court held that the applicant's request for disclosure of the respondent's estate value under section 7 of the Matrimonial Property Act was premature. The right to share in the accrual only arises upon dissolution of the marriage, and the operative moment for determining the accrual is at dissolution, not at the close of pleadings or prior to trial. The applicant did not make out a case for immediate division under section 8(1), nor did she provide factual evidence of prejudice or asset dissipation. The court found that the reasons advanced by the applicant did not justify early disclosur…

Source excerpt

• Matrimonial Property Act
• Accrual System
• Premature Disclosure
• Forfeiture Of Accrual
• Spousal Maintenance

O.S.G v S.A.G (66408/09)

O.S.G v S.A.G (66408/09) [2014] ZAGPPHC 373 (23 May 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

66408/09

Judge

Hughes

The court found that the respondent's right to share in the accrual of the applicant's estate only arises upon dissolution of the marriage, as provided by section 3 of the Matrimonial Property Act. Therefore, the issue of forfeiture cannot be conveniently separated and determined prior to the dissolution, as the respondent would be prejudiced by being unable to exercise her right until the marriage is dissolved. The court held that separation under Rule 33(4) is not appropriate in these circumstances, and the application for separation was refused.

Source excerpt

• Matrimonial Property Act
• Accrual System
• Forfeiture Of Accrual
• Rule 33 4 Separation
• Divorce Proceedings

V v V (10/13906)

V v V (10/13906) [2014] ZAGPJHC 328 (2 April 2014)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

10/13906

Judge

Makume

The court found that the defendant's conduct in orchestrating an attempt on the plaintiff's life constituted substantial misconduct justifying forfeiture of benefits under the accrual system. While the defendant contributed to the household and child-rearing, her actions were motivated by financial gain rather than abuse, and she failed to take reasonable steps to address alleged mistreatment. The court determined that the defendant should receive only a portion of the accrual that existed prior to the events of 14 February 2010, specifically R750,000 and retention of her vehicle. The defenda…

Source excerpt

• Forfeiture Of Accrual
• Spousal Maintenance
• Parental Rights And Responsibilities
• Division Of Assets
• Medical Aid Entitlement