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.P.M v L.M (Born M) (56859/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 729 (2 August 2024)
The High Court dismissed an application to rescind a bar-order dismissal and a divorce judgment, finding no good cause, no bona fide defence, and no Rule 42 basis.
K.R.M v J.M.M (A161/2023) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1955 (27 November 2023)
Appeal against a divorce forfeiture order remitted to the court a quo because the record did not establish when the immovable property was acquired or owned.
I.A.T v M.Q.T (FB05/2018) [2020] ZANWHC 65 (15 September 2020)
The appellant failed to discharge the onus of proving that the respondent should forfeit her matrimonial benefits. The evidence did not establish substantial misconduct or undue benefit to the respondent. The allegations of extra-marital affairs were based on hearsay and not substantiated. The respondent contributed to the household and cared for the children throughout the marriage. The court a quo correctly applied section 9(1) of the Divorce Act, considering the duration of the marriage, circumstances of breakdown, and lack of substantial misconduct. There is no basis for forfeiture, and t…
Source excerpt
L v L (26758/2014) [2019] ZAGPPHC 352 (3 July 2019)
The High Court corrected an incomplete divorce order, granting the decree of divorce and ancillary child-maintenance and parental-responsibility relief.
S v S (5888/09) [2014] ZAFSHC 222 (4 December 2014)
A divorce trial proceeded after a postponement was refused. The court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim, granted divorce, ordered division of the joint estate, and each party paid own costs.
Molapo v Molapo (4411/10) [2013] ZAFSHC 29 (14 March 2013)
A South African divorce case on forfeiture of matrimonial benefits, where the court ordered a partial forfeiture and divided the house proceeds two-thirds to one-third.
M G v R G (AR 461/09) [2010] ZAKZPHC 105 (8 February 2010)
The presiding officer materially misdirected herself by refusing to grant token maintenance, despite uncontested evidence of the appellant's need and the respondent's conduct. The refusal deprived the appellant of the right to claim increased maintenance in the future, which is contrary to established legal principles and the constitutional imperative to protect vulnerable parties. The approach in this Division towards token maintenance is consistent with constitutional jurisprudence recognising the vulnerability of women and the need for judicial vigilance. On forfeiture of benefits, the app…
Source excerpt
Explore more
