South Africa Case Law

Kruger N.O v M.R.M and Another (M432/2023)

Kruger N.O v M.R.M and Another (M432/2023) [2025] ZANWHC 45 (21 February 2025)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

M432/2023

Judge

FMM Reid

The applicant, as court-appointed liquidator, has a clear right to access and dispose of the joint estate's assets, including the immovable properties. The 1st respondent's unilateral set-off claim regarding the pension interest does not affect the applicant's mandate or the execution of the divorce order. The requirements for a final interdict—clear right, reasonable apprehension of irreparable harm, and lack of alternative remedy—have all been satisfied. The 1st respondent's opposition is based on a disputed calculation of the joint estate's value, which is not before this Court for determi…

Source excerpt

• Final Interdict
• Liquidation Of Joint Estate
• Division Of Joint Estate
• Set Off
• Pension Interest In Divorce
• Access To Property

M.M v M.M

M.M v M.M [2023] ZAGPPHC 193; 50524/2017 (22 March 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

50524/2017

Judge

E van der Schyff

High Court divorce judgment dividing a community estate, rejecting forfeiture, and awarding the plaintiff 50% of the defendant’s pension interest.

• Division Of Joint Estate
• Pension Interest In Divorce
• Forfeiture Of Patrimonial Benefits
• Parental Rights And Responsibilities
• Child Maintenance
• Divorce

L.V.K v L.D.Z (A3047/2019)

L.V.K v L.D.Z (A3047/2019) [2023] ZAGPJHC 65 (30 January 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A3047/2019

Judges

L R Adams, Turner AJ

The High Court found that the original divorce settlement agreement, incorporated into the decree, expressly excluded the respondent's entitlement to the appellant's pension interest. The agreement was reached after negotiations between legally represented parties and contained clear language regarding the division of assets. The respondent's reliance on case law was misplaced, as those cases involved blanket divisions of joint estates, whereas here the parties expressly agreed otherwise. The court held that no 'good reason' existed under s 36 of the Magistrates Court Act or Rule 49 to vary t…

Source excerpt

• Variation Of Divorce Order
• Settlement Agreement Interpretation
• Pension Interest In Divorce
• Condonation Application

M.J.T v J.K.T (603/2009)

M.J.T v J.K.T (603/2009) [2021] ZAFSHC 344 (5 August 2021)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

603/2009

Judge

M Voges

The High Court varied a divorce order to include explicit directions for division of pension interests and property, and awarded costs against the respondent.

• Division Of Joint Estate
• Pension Interest In Divorce
• Variation Of Court Order
• Community Of Property
• Non Joinder
• Costs Award

M.C.M v M.M and Others (34709/2003)

M.C.M v M.M and Others (34709/2003) [2020] ZAGPPHC 505 (9 September 2020)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

34709/2003

Judge

Skosana

The applicant is entitled to 50% of the first respondent's pension benefits held by the Government Employees Pension Fund as at the date of dissolution of the marriage, as the marriage was in community of property and the joint estate was ordered to be divided equally. The right to the pension benefit accrued at the date of divorce, and the mechanism for payment must now be enforced. The delay in bringing the application is condoned, as no prejudice has been or will be suffered by the first respondent, and the pension benefits remain secure with the GEPF. The omission in the attestation certi…

Source excerpt

• Division Of Joint Estate
• Pension Interest In Divorce
• Customary Marriage
• Condonation Of Delay

R.K v M.L.K (320/19)

R.K v M.L.K (320/19) [2020] ZAECGHC 90 (18 August 2020)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

320/19

Judges

P N Kroon, M J Lowe

The magistrate erred in granting a forfeiture order regarding the appellant's entitlement to the respondent's pension fund interest when no claim for forfeiture was pleaded or brought by the respondent. At common law and under the Divorce Act, a forfeiture order cannot be granted mero motu; it must be claimed and supported by relevant facts. The respondent failed to plead forfeiture, bring a counterclaim, or lead evidence justifying such an order. The only evidence before the trial court was the short duration of the marriage, which is insufficient to justify forfeiture. The correct order is…

Source excerpt

• Division Of Joint Estate
• Pension Interest In Divorce
• Forfeiture Of Patrimonial Benefits
• Pleading Requirements
• Condonation

S v Nedbank Limited (5058/2019)

S v Nedbank Limited (5058/2019) [2020] ZALMPPHC 46 (11 June 2020)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

5058/2019

Judge

GC Muller

The High Court held that an applicant could not demand direct payment of preserved pension funds from the bank before division of the joint estate.

• Division Of Joint Estate
• Pension Interest In Divorce
• Interim Interdict
• Bank As Stakeholder
• Division-of-joint-estate
• Pension-interest-in-divorce

M.B.M v W.M.M (10751/2000)

M.B.M v W.M.M (10751/2000) [2020] ZAGPPHC 155 (20 March 2020)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

10751/2000

Judge

Van Staden

The court dismissed an application to vary a divorce decree 19 years later, finding the applicant had waived his rights in the joint estate by prolonged inaction.

• Variation Of Divorce Decree
• Waiver Of Ownership Rights
• Division Of Joint Estate
• Pension Interest In Divorce
• Rule-42-1
• Divorce-decree-variation

T v B (2113/2012)

T v B (2113/2012) [2018] ZAFSHC 133 (17 September 2018)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

2113/2012

Judge

Nulliah

The High Court supplemented a divorce order to include equal division of the joint estate and 50% of the respondent’s pension interest.

• Division Of Joint Estate
• Pension Interest In Divorce
• Default Judgment
• Rule 42 Variation
• Forfeiture Of Benefits
• Division-of-joint-estate

M.M.S v J.M.S (HCA04/2015)

M.M.S v J.M.S (HCA04/2015) [2016] ZALMPPHC 12 (28 October 2016)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

HCA04/2015

Judges

Ndlokovane, E.M Makgoba

A divorce appeal on forfeiture of patrimonial benefits was upheld. The High Court ordered equal division of the joint estate and rejected partial forfeiture of the respondent’s pension interest.

• Division Of Joint Estate
• Forfeiture Of Patrimonial Benefits
• Pension Interest In Divorce
• Maintenance Of Minor Children
• Divorce-forfeiture
• Joint-estate-division