South Africa Case Law

M.S (nee R) v J.S (32041/2022)

M.S (nee R) v J.S (32041/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1109 (29 October 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

32041/2022

Judge

Amien

The court found that the main issue to be determined in the divorce action is the division of the matrimonial estate, and that separating the issue of the matrimonial property regime would not materially shorten the proceedings. Any evidence led in the interlocutory application would overlap with the main divorce action, and separation would only serve to delay the finalization of the matter. The court balanced the potential prejudice to both parties and concluded that substantial grounds for separation did not exist, nor would it be convenient or serve the interests of justice. Accordingly,…

Source excerpt

• Matrimonial Property Regime
• Rule 33 4 Separation Of Issues
• Postnuptial Agreement
• Accrual System
• Universal Partnership

A M v H M (CCT95/19)

A M v H M (CCT95/19) [2020] ZACC 9; 2020 (8) BCLR 903 (CC) (26 May 2020)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT95/19

Judges

Mogoeng, Jafta, Khampepe, Madlanga, Mathopo, Mhlantla, Theron, Tshiqi, Victor

The Constitutional Court dismissed leave to appeal in a dispute over a postnuptial agreement, holding the new constitutional points were raised too late.

• Matrimonial Property Act
• Postnuptial Agreement
• Leave To Appeal
• Contractual Freedom
• Public Policy
• Postnuptial-agreement

H M v A M (1317/17)

H M v A M (1317/17) [2019] ZASCA 12 (14 March 2019)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1317/17

Judges

Cachalia, Majiedt, Schippers, Mokgohloa, Matojane

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a postnuptial agreement was not concluded in contemplation of divorce and could not be enforced as a settlement.

• Postnuptial Agreement
• Divorce Settlement
• Maintenance
• Matrimonial Property Regime
• Postnuptial-agreement
• Divorce-settlement