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
K.P.M v O.L.M and Another (Reasons) (1751/2008) [2025] ZANWHC 103 (17 June 2025)
The High Court dismissed an application to vary a divorce decree under Rule 42, holding there was no common mistake and the proper remedy was appeal.
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.
H.S.E v H.A.E (3350/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 322 (15 August 2023)
The High Court found the applicant in contempt for non-payment of maintenance and costs, but declined to stay his residence-variation application pending purge.
M.B v R.B and Others (2321/2016) [2023] ZANCHC 30 (14 July 2023)
The court found that the applicant, as a beneficiary of the Ri-El Trust, failed to demonstrate a direct and substantial legal interest in the subject-matter of the divorce and related proceedings. The trust assets, while considered for accrual purposes, remain the property of the trust and are not divested by the impugned order or deed of settlement. The applicant's interest was found to be speculative and not sufficient to establish locus standi for intervention. The court held that piercing the trust veneer for accrual calculation does not require the joinder of the trust or its beneficiari…
Source excerpt
L.T v N.A.T (2021/56157) [2023] ZAGPJHC 787 (11 July 2023)
The court found that the divorce order was granted following a procedurally regular process, with proper notice served on the defendant's attorneys. The defendant's absence was due to his attorneys' failure to inform him, not a procedural irregularity or error within the meaning of Rule 42(1)(a). The court emphasized that the requirements for variation under Rule 42(1)(a) are narrow and not met merely because a party was absent due to their attorney's omission. The subsequent employment of the plaintiff was not a fact existing at the time of the order and could not have influenced the judgmen…
Source excerpt
M.G.N v M.S.N [2023] ZAGPPHC 484; 4342/20 (2 June 2023)
The High Court varied a divorce order under Rule 42(1)(b), clarifying that the applicant’s living annuity and the respondent’s pension fund were already included in the equal division calculation.
B.J.M v M.A.M [2023] ZAGPPHC 147; 1423/2004 (1 March 2023)
The court found that the applicant's application for variation of the divorce order was fatally defective due to the inordinate delay of 16 years and the absence of any application for condonation or explanation for the delay. The settlement agreement, made an order of court, clearly set out the disposition of the parties' assets, including the respondent's pension benefit under 'all other assets.' The applicant's interpretation of clause 4.1 was rejected as opportunistic and absurd. The principles governing condonation require both a reasonable explanation for delay and prospects of success,…
Source excerpt
C.N.N v N.N (2021/11607) [2023] ZAGPJHC 208; [2023] 2 All SA 365 (GJ); 2023 (5) SA 199 (GJ) (23 February 2023)
The court held that the applicant cannot claim pension benefits that accrued to the respondent before the divorce was granted. Section 7(8) of the Divorce Act only allows for the division of pension interests that exist at the date of divorce, not accrued pension benefits resulting from resignation prior to divorce. The legislative framework does not permit a non-member spouse to claim directly from the fund where the member spouse has exited the fund before divorce. The variation sought by the applicant, substituting 'pension interest' with 'accrued pension benefit', would be unenforceable a…
Source excerpt
L.V.K v L.D.Z (A3047/2019) [2023] ZAGPJHC 65 (30 January 2023)
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
S v S (born R) (42712/2018) [2022] ZAGPJHC 683 (14 September 2022)
The court found that the divorce order itself should not be rescinded, as the defendant conceded the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage and had no bona fide defence. However, prayer 3 of the order was erroneously granted, as it deviated materially from the relief pleaded by the plaintiff and failed to provide for the appointment of a liquidator, clear directions for sale, and division of proceeds. The order was vague and unenforceable, necessitating variation under Rule 42(1)(a). The defendant's counterclaim was not adjudicated or struck out and remained extant; the court ordered that it…
Source excerpt
Explore more
