South Africa Case Law

Moloisane v Government Employees Pension Fund and Others (108955/2024)

Moloisane v Government Employees Pension Fund and Others (108955/2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1147 (12 November 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

108955/2024

Judge

K Strydom

The court found that the applicant, married in community of property to the second respondent, established a prima facie right to 50% of the pension fund interest upon division of the joint estate. The second respondent's vague and evasive responses regarding his employment status and pension fund details, coupled with a prior attempt to sell the matrimonial home without the applicant's knowledge, created a reasonable apprehension of dissipation of assets. The applicant demonstrated urgency and irreparable harm, as payment of the pension benefit prior to divorce would frustrate her claim. The…

Source excerpt

• Anti Dissipation Order
• Interim Interdict
• Pension Fund Interest
• Marriage In Community Of Property
• Urgent Application
• Division Of Joint Estate

Z v Z (34253/2010)

Z v Z (34253/2010) [2024] ZAGPJHC 4 (10 January 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

34253/2010

Judge

Adams

Divorce case on forfeiture under section 9 of the Divorce Act. The court found substantial misconduct by the husband and ordered partial forfeiture of the wife’s pension interest.

• Divorce Act Section 9
• Forfeiture Of Patrimonial Benefits
• Marriage In Community Of Property
• Substantial Misconduct
• Distribution Of Joint Estate
• Divorce-act-section-9

B.R.B.M v R.K.B.M

B.R.B.M v R.K.B.M [2023] ZAGPPHC 403; 19279/2019 (5 June 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

19279/2019

Judge

Phooko

The court found that the parties were married in community of property for 22 years, which constitutes a long duration. However, the Defendant failed to make tangible contributions to the joint estate, both during the marriage and after separation, and committed substantial misconduct through financial deprivation and infidelity. The Plaintiff was the primary financial provider and caregiver for the children. The Defendant's benefit from the dissolution of the marriage would be undue, as she did not contribute meaningfully to the accumulation of assets. The court held that the Plaintiff met t…

Source excerpt

• Divorce
• Forfeiture Of Patrimonial Benefits
• Marriage In Community Of Property
• Substantial Misconduct
• Division Of Joint Estate

N.P.M v M.H.M (3204/2021P)

N.P.M v M.H.M (3204/2021P) [2023] ZAKZPHC 43 (21 April 2023)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

3204/2021P

Judge

P C Bezuidenhout

The court held that the retrenchment payment received by the defendant during the subsistence of the marriage forms part of the joint estate and must be considered in the division of assets. The defendant is entitled to 50% of the plaintiff's pension interest with the Government Employees Pension Fund, calculated as at the date of divorce, not the date of separation. The court relied on clear statutory language and binding precedent, which establish that pension interests are to be included in the joint estate and divided equally upon divorce, with the relevant date for calculation being the…

Source excerpt

• Pension Interest On Divorce
• Marriage In Community Of Property
• Division Of Joint Estate
• Date Of Pension Calculation

Sidimela and Others v Marage

Sidimela and Others v Marage [2023] ZAGPPHC 171; A461/2017 (8 March 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A461/2017

Judges

MPN Mbongwe, VV Tlhapi, MM Lingenfelder

The High Court held that pension benefits are governed by section 37C of the Pension Funds Act, not marital property rules, and upheld condonation and the appeal.

• Pension Fund Benefits
• Section 37c Interpretation
• Condonation Of Late Appeal
• Marriage In Community Of Property
• Pension-fund-benefits
• Section-37c

M v M (A3004/2022)

M v M (A3004/2022) [2022] ZAGPJHC 1024 (30 December 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A3004/2022

Judges

Twala M L, Opperman

High Court appeal dismissed after the appellant failed to prove the value and ambit of benefits he sought to forfeit under section 9 of the Divorce Act.

• Forfeiture Of Patrimonial Benefits
• Divorce Act Section 9
• Marriage In Community Of Property
• Undue Benefit
• Burden Of Proof
• Forfeiture-of-patrimonial-benefits

M.L.J v A.J and Others (50044/2011)

M.L.J v A.J and Others (50044/2011) [2022] ZAGPPHC 323 (20 May 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

50044/2011

Judge

E van der Schyff

The High Court granted joinder of the AJ Familie Trust trustees in a divorce action, holding the Trust had a direct and substantial interest in the relief sought.

• Joinder Of Parties
• Trust Assets In Divorce
• Piercing Trust Veil
• Marriage In Community Of Property
• Joinder-of-parties
• Trust-assets-in-divorce

S v S (5214/2013)

S v S (5214/2013) [2022] ZAGPJHC 125 (8 March 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

5214/2013

Judge

Mahomed

The High Court struck out the respondent’s defence, granted condonation, and varied a divorce order to clarify that each party keeps movable property in possession.

• Condonation
• Variation Of Court Order
• Marriage In Community Of Property
• Forfeiture Of Benefits
• Rule 42 Uniform Rules
• Division Of Joint Estate

M.M.M v Z.M (895/19; A3129/19)

M.M.M v Z.M (895/19; A3129/19) [2021] ZAGPJHC 364 (31 May 2021)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

895/19; A3129/19

Judges

Cowen, Tsoka

The appellant failed to discharge the onus of proof regarding the extent of the benefit the respondent would derive from the division of the joint estate. No evidence was presented as to the value of the house, the associated liability, or the pension interests at the relevant dates. Without such evidence, the court could not properly evaluate whether any benefit to the respondent would be undue in terms of section 9(1) of the Divorce Act. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the Magistrate's order upheld.

Source excerpt

• Forfeiture Of Patrimonial Benefits
• Marriage In Community Of Property
• Onus Of Proof
• Division Of Joint Estate
• Condonation Of Late Appeal

S M v B M (29933/2017)

S M v B M (29933/2017) [2020] ZAGPJHC 328 (28 August 2020)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

29933/2017

Judge

Senyatsi ML

The High Court refused leave to appeal against a judgment on forfeiture of a pension interest, finding no reasonable prospect of success under section 17(1).

• Forfeiture Of Pension Interest
• Leave To Appeal Standard
• Marriage In Community Of Property
• Leave-to-appeal
• Pension-interest-forfeiture
• Marriage-in-community-of-property