South Africa Case Law

M M v M M and Another (3019/2014)

M M v M M and Another (3019/2014) [2018] ZAFSHC 192 (6 December 2018)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

3019/2014

Judge

Mhlambi

The court held that a deed of settlement incorporated into a divorce decree constitutes a court order enforceable by writ of execution, provided the obligation is clear and quantifiable. The applicant’s liability for payment of tertiary or post-school expenses was established in clause 2.3 of the settlement agreement. The arguments raised by the applicant regarding locus standi, irregularity of the warrant, and the nature of the child’s education were found to be without merit. The court found no reason to set aside or rescind the warrant of execution, as the settlement agreement was properly…

Source excerpt

• Enforcement Of Settlement Agreement
• Warrant Of Execution
• Divorce Order
• Maintenance Liability

W v W and Another (2000/21991)

W v W and Another (2000/21991) [2010] ZAGPJHC 153; 2011 (6) SA 237 (GSJ) (10 December 2010)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2000/21991

Judge

W L Wepener

The court found that the settlement agreement, declared binding by the court at the time of divorce, was intended by both the parties and the court to have the force of a court order. The applicant's obligation to pay maintenance was imposed by a valid court order, and the writ of execution was properly issued. The applicant's generalised claims of irreparable harm were unsupported by facts, and the amount in question was nominal. The applicant had not demonstrated inability to pay or provided sufficient grounds for a reduction in maintenance. The court declined to exercise its discretion to…

Source excerpt

• Maintenance Liability
• Writ Of Execution
• Divorce Settlement Agreement
• Stay Of Execution

Vairetti v Zardo NO and Others (12423/2007)

Vairetti v Zardo NO and Others (12423/2007) [2010] ZAWCHC 146 (12 April 2010)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

12423/2007

Judge

Nathan Erasmus

The court held that the applicant had a usus right, not a usufruct, under a trust deed, and that she was not liable for maintenance costs or rates.

• Trust Deed Interpretation
• Servitude Usus
• Servitude Usufruct
• Maintenance Liability
• Security For Property
• Rights Of Occupation