Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
S.L.M. v H.A.C (18281/2021) [2025] ZAGPJHC 687 (19 June 2025)
High Court divorce judgment ordering payment on equal division of a joint estate, plus levy reimbursement and sale of timeshare units, after rejecting tax-based objections.
M.A.P v F.M.A.N (A151/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 858 (29 August 2024)
High Court appeal upheld a variation of a divorce order to include a pension interest in division of the joint estate and rejected a retrospective forfeiture argument.
N.P.M v M.H.M (3204/2021P) [2023] ZAKZPHC 43 (21 April 2023)
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
Roelofse N.O. v L and Another (2016/13170) [2021] ZAGPJHC 740 (26 November 2021)
The High Court confirmed an interim interdict over pension funds, held the receiver was not functus officio, found no valid compromise, and awarded attorney-client costs.
M.M v T.C.M (CA174/2019) [2021] ZAECGHC 87 (14 September 2021)
The court found that the litigation between the parties was settled in terms of Rule 18 of the Magistrates' Court Rules, as evidenced by the appellant's unconditional offer to settle and the respondent's acceptance. The settlement agreement expressly dealt with the division of the joint estate and the appellant's pension interest, but made no provision for the appellant's entitlement to the respondent's pension interest. The subsequent variation of the divorce order incorporated only the agreed terms regarding the appellant's pension interest, with no mention of reciprocal entitlement. The ap…
Source excerpt
M v SALA Pension Fund (2021/5781) [2021] ZAGPJHC 444 (31 August 2021)
The court found that while the applicant may be entitled to 50% of the deceased's pension interest as at the date of divorce, the court order relied upon does not comply with the requirements of section 7(8) of the Divorce Act. Specifically, the order does not identify the respondent pension fund nor direct it to make payment to the applicant. As a result, the respondent is not bound by the order and is not obliged to pay the applicant her share of the pension interest. The applicant must seek satisfaction from the deceased's estate. The respondent acted in accordance with section 37C of the…
Source excerpt
Ndaba v Ndaba (600/2015) [2016] ZASCA 162; [2017] 1 All SA 33 (SCA); 2017 (1) SA 342 (SCA) (4 November 2016)
The majority held that, in marriages in community of property, the pension interest of each spouse is by operation of law deemed to be part of the joint estate for the purpose of determining patrimonial benefits at divorce, as per s 7(7)(a) of the Divorce Act. This inclusion is automatic and does not require a specific order or mention in the settlement agreement or divorce order. The entitlement of the non-member spouse to a share of the member spouse's pension interest is not dependent on s 7(8), which merely provides a mechanism for direct payment by the pension fund. The majority found th…
Source excerpt
L v L and Another (A9/15) [2016] ZAFSHC 185 (22 August 2016)
The court found that the first respondent did not have sufficient information to formulate a sustainable cause of action for payment of her share of the appellant's pension benefits. The appellant's obstructive conduct and lack of cooperation, coupled with his assertion that he did not possess the relevant documents, constituted exceptional circumstances justifying deviation from normal discovery procedures. The misnomer in the divorce order regarding the pension fund did not affect the first respondent's entitlement, as it was clear from the facts that the Transnet Retirement Fund was intend…
Source excerpt
B.S.M (nee M) v N.A.M (HCA18/2015) [2016] ZALMPPHC 2 (17 June 2016)
Appeal in a divorce matter over whether pension interests had to be specifically pleaded or separately ordered in a blanket division of the joint estate.
K v Government Employees Pension Fund and Another (A3058/2015) [2016] ZAGPJHC 64 (30 March 2016)
The court held that Section 7(7) and (8) of the Divorce Act were enacted to ensure that pension interests are included in the joint estate of parties married in community of property. The absence of a specific order in the divorce decree does not preclude a spouse from claiming a share of the pension interest, provided the joint estate has not yet been divided. The court rejected the restrictive approach in Sempapalele v Sempapalele, preferring the reasoning in Maharaj v Maharaj and Fritz v Funds at work, which allows a spouse to apply for an endorsement in the pension fund records after divo…
Source excerpt
Explore more
