P.N v D.N (10481/2018) [2025] ZAWCHC 335 (6 August 2025)
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Case number
10481/2018
Judge
Kholong
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.
T.J.M v K.J.M and Another (11409/2022) [2025] ZAGPPHC 253 (3 March 2025)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
11409/2022
Judge
Moshoana
A divorce judgment granted the decree of divorce, made the parties’ settlement agreement an order of court, and ordered forfeiture of pension and property benefits.
T.S.S v M.A.S - Appeal (HCA04/2023) [2024] ZALMPPHC 69 (22 July 2024)
Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Case number
HCA04/2023
Judges
Kganyago, Deane
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.
A.R.S (born K) v M.S.S (2427/2021) [2024] ZALMPPHC 10 (30 January 2024)
Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Case number
2427/2021
Judge
Sikhwari
The court found that the defendant contributed to the joint estate in accordance with his income and circumstances, and the plaintiff failed to prove substantial misconduct or infidelity sufficient to justify forfeiture. The duration of the marriage, the parties' respective ages, and the lack of evidence of undue benefit weighed against granting forfeiture. The maintenance amount for the minor child was undisputed and reasonable. Parental responsibilities and rights were allocated to ensure both parties retained guardianship, with the plaintiff awarded daily care and residence, and the defend…
V.R v V.R (4939/2020) [2023] ZAFSHC 68 (1 March 2023)
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Case number
4939/2020
Judge
AK Ramlal
High Court divorce matter: the plaintiff forfeited marital benefits, child maintenance was set at R7,000 per month, and parental responsibilities were allocated.
A.V.W v S.V.W and Others (3118/2021) [2022] ZAWCHC 74 (20 April 2022)
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Case number
3118/2021
Judge
De Wet
The court found that the first defendant raised bona fide disputes regarding the adequacy of maintenance for the minor child, the enforceability of the consent paper, and the validity of the waiver of spousal maintenance. The court emphasized its statutory duty under the Divorce Act to ensure maintenance arrangements for minor children are satisfactory and that settlement agreements in divorce matters are subject to judicial scrutiny. Given the lack of evidence to determine whether the agreement served the best interests of the minor child and the unresolved issues regarding trust property an…
P.I.L v P.E.L (5345/2017) [2020] ZAFSHC 44 (27 February 2020)
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Case number
5345/2017
Judge
Chesiwe
Divorce judgment on child maintenance, pension-interest sharing, and forfeiture. The court fixed maintenance at R2,500 monthly and awarded the plaintiff 50% of the defendant’s pension interest.
L.P.M v M.E.B (14649/2019) [2019] ZAGPPHC 976 (18 November 2019)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
14649/2019
Judge
MNGQIBISA-THUSI
The High Court referred a customary-marriage dispute to oral evidence, dismissed most of the application, reserved costs, and left interim child contact and care orders in place.
L v L (26758/2014) [2019] ZAGPPHC 352 (3 July 2019)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
26758/2014
Judge
Lukhaimane
The High Court corrected an incomplete divorce order, granting the decree of divorce and ancillary child-maintenance and parental-responsibility relief.
D.R.M v D.M.K (2017/2016) [2018] ZALMPPHC 62 (7 November 2018)
Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Case number
2017/2016
Judge
Makgoba
The court found that, despite the payment of lobola, there was no formal handing over of the Defendant to the Plaintiff or his family, as required by customary law and practice. The evidence of the Plaintiff and his witnesses was preferred over that of the Defendant and her witnesses, who failed to establish that the handing over occurred. The court held that the handing over of the bride is an essential requirement for a valid customary marriage, distinguishing marriage from mere cohabitation. Without this, no valid customary marriage exists between the parties. The Defendant's claims for ma…