Benatar Childrens Trust v Benatar (HC 2616 of 2014; HH 124 of 2017) [2017] ZWHHC 124 (2 March 2017)

Benatar Childrens Trust v Benatar (HC 2616 of 2014; HH 124 of 2017) [2017] ZWHHC 124 (2 March 2017)

The defendant was aware of the court order making the Addendum an order of court and was obliged to pay US$3,000.00 per month to the trust from 31 August 2011. The trust was properly formed in terms of the Addendum and the High Court Rules. The defendant’s defences of lack of service, unilateral formation, and direct provision for beneficiaries are without merit. The obligation to pay into the trust is clear and enforceable.

Citation
[2017] ZWHHC 124
Parties
Plaintiff: The Benatar Children’s Trust; Defendant: Robert Daniel Benatar
Court
Harare High Court
Jurisdiction
Zimbabwe
Judgment Date
2 March 2017
Case Number
HC 2616 of 2014 ; HH 124 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiff
Legal Topics
Maintenance, Enforcement of Court Orders, Trust Formation, Specific Performance
Source Language
English
Family Law Trust Law Civil Procedure Maintenance Enforcement of Court Orders Trust Formation Specific Performance

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Benatar Children’s Trust

Plaintiff

Robert Daniel Benatar

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant is liable to pay US$3,000.00 per month to the plaintiff trust from 31 August 2011 as per the Addendum made an order of court
  2. 2 Whether the trust was properly formed and entitled to sue
  3. 3 Whether lack of personal service of the court order excuses non-compliance

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant was aware of the court order making the Addendum an order of court and was obliged to pay US$3,000.00 per month to the trust from 31 August 2011. The trust was properly formed in terms of the Addendum and the High Court Rules. The defendant’s defences of lack of service, unilateral formation, and direct provision for beneficiaries are without merit. The obligation to pay into the trust is clear and enforceable.

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiff

Orders

  • Defendant to pay US$3,000.00 per month with effect from 31 August 2011
  • Interest on the said sum at the prescribed rate from 31 August 2011 to date of payment in full