South Africa Case Law

C.V v W.J.V (49307/2017)

C.V v W.J.V (49307/2017) [2019] ZAGPPHC 347 (16 July 2019)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

49307/2017

Judge

V.T. Mtati

The court found that the plaintiff demonstrated a need for maintenance post-divorce due to her reduced earning capacity and the standard of living maintained during the marriage. While the plaintiff is capable of earning income and has prospects for advancement, she cannot presently generate the same income as before. The defendant has the means to contribute to maintenance, as evidenced by his income and financial position. The court exercised its discretion under section 7(2) of the Divorce Act, considering the duration of the marriage, the parties' respective contributions, and the need fo…

Source excerpt

• Maintenance Post Divorce
• Rehabilitative Maintenance
• Division Of Assets
• Costs Award

E.L.H v E.H (712/2015)

E.L.H v E.H (712/2015) [2018] ZANCHC 88 (23 November 2018)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

712/2015

Judge

S J Groenewaldt

Divorce matter in which the court granted a final decree and ordered spousal maintenance of R5,000 per month until the plaintiff’s death or remarriage.

• Maintenance Post Divorce
• Accrual System
• Matrimonial Property Act
• Division Of Assets
• Spousal Support
• Divorce

B.A.M v A.M (21530/2009)

B.A.M v A.M (21530/2009) [2014] ZAGPPHC 70 (28 February 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

21530/2009

Judge

TM Makgoka

The High Court held that the applicant’s Rule 43(6) maintenance application had lapsed for late service, and ordered the applicant to pay the costs.

• Maintenance Post Divorce
• Rule 43 Applications
• Costs Award
• Lapse Of Interim Orders
• Family-law
• Maintenance

Beaumont v Beaumont (326/1985)

Beaumont v Beaumont (326/1985) [1986] ZASCA 158; [1987] 2 All SA 1 (A) (15 December 1986)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

326/1985

Judges

Trengove JA, Viljoen JA, Botha JA, Jacobs JA, Boshoff AJA

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the trial judge properly exercised his discretion in awarding both a redistribution order and maintenance to the respondent. The respondent's contributions to the appellant's estate, both direct and indirect, were substantial and extended beyond the ordinary duty of support, justifying a redistribution order under section 7(3) of the Divorce Act. The maintenance awarded was necessary to meet the respondent's reasonable needs, given her limited earning capacity and responsibilities to minor children. The appellant's financial position was found to be under…

Source excerpt

• Redistribution Order
• Maintenance Post Divorce
• Divorce Act Section 7
• Antenuptial Contract
• Contribution To Estate
• Judicial Discretion