A.L.C v M.C (35436/2020) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1377 (31 December 2025)

begin wrapper begin container begin header begin slogan-floater end slogan-floater - About SAFLII About SAFLII - Databases Databases - Search Search - Terms of Use Terms of Use - RSS Feeds RSS Feeds end header begin main begin center # South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria >> 2025 >> [2025] ZAGPPHC 1377 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## A.L.C v M.C (35436/2020) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1377 (31 December 2025) A.L.C v M.C (35436/2020) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1377 (31 December 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2025_1377.html sino date 31 December 2025 SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy FLYNOTES: FAMILY – Divorce – Division of joint estate – Excluded assets – Road Accident Fund compensation award – Constitutes separate property and does not fall into joint estate – Parties disputed amounts derived from award that should be reimbursed – Proven amounts applied to benefit of joint estate were to be deducted from its total value before division – Deductibles included bond settlement, motor vehicle, home improvements and detachable furniture – Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984 , s 18. IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE NO: 35436/2020 (1)  REPORTABLE: YES/ NO (2)  OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO (3)  REVISED. 31/12/2025             N V KHUMALO J In the matter between: A L C[…]                                                                                    PLAINTIFF and M C[…]                                                                                       DEFENDANT ‘ This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties’ representatives by email. The date and time of hand-down is deemed to be 31 December 2025. JUDGMENT N V KHUMALO J Introduction [1]  In this action Mr C LM (“the Plaintiff”) is seeking an order for divorce from his wife Ms C M (“the Defendant”), and a division of their joint estate. [2]  The parties were married to each other in community of property on 25 March 1990, which marriage still subsists and have three (3) adult children. They are agreed that their marriage has irretrievably broken down with no prospects of reconciliation. [3]  The joint estate was valued as at the date of the trial to be R717 000.00 plus both parties’ pension benefits. The parties are agreed that the estate includes an immovable property described as Erf 7[…], Atteridgeville, Soshanguve Ext, that is the matrimonial home, presently occupied by the Defendant and their adult children and movable property that consists of a motor vehicle that is in Plaintiff’s possession plus household goods. [4]  The issue of contestation is what constitute their joint estate that is to be divided on dissolution of their marriage due to a counterclaim by the Defendant that an amount of R683 860.00 should be subtracted from the total value of the joint estate and be declared her separate property. Pleadings [5]  The Defendant has in her Plea, implored for a forfeiture order in terms of s 9 of the Divorce Act 70 of 1979 . She alleges that the Plaintiff abused her emotionally and financially, barely contributed to the joint estate and caused the irretrievable break down of the marriage by having an extra marital affair. Moreover, that he also failed to financially participate in the bringing up of their children. [6]  The Defendant filed a counterclaim in which she contrariwise seeks the  forfeiture order. She claimed that it would be just and equitable if the Plaintiff’s share of the joint estate is transferred to her including any claim or interest to her pension fund. She however, also prayed, in contradiction of the forfeiture order, for the division of the joint estate. [7]  The Plaintiff in his Reply to the Plea denied the allegation that he abused the Defendant financially by not contributing towards the upkeep of the family. He avers to have been employed throughout their marriage and to have contributed to the household expenses. Furthermore, to have raised their children alone as the Defendant used to work nightshifts at hospital, leaving him to look after the children all night. During that period he bathed the children, prepared their lunch boxes and took them to school every morning. The Defendant and the children now as adults, have been emotionally abusive towards him. They chased him away from the matrimonial home. [8]  He insists that he is entitled to 50% of the pension interest in the Provident Fund that is in terms of s 7 (7) of the Divorce Act 70 of 1979 as it is deemed to be part of the joint estate. In relation to the immovable property, he avers that he has been employed for the 26 years they have been married, contributing financially towards the joint estate by paying a portion of the bond repayments they jointly held with Standard Bank and South African Home Loans. He also purchased some of the furniture through some of the service providers and has receipts to confirm the purchases. [9]  According to him the duration of their marriage indicates how happy they were and denies any misconduct. He alleges to have instead been emotionally abused, belittled in front of their children and chased away by the Defendant. He pleads for the dismissal of the counterclaim for forfeiture, with an order for punitive costs. [10]  He denies that the order for division of the joint estate will benefit him unduly and pleads that the order for forfeiture will on the other hand be prejudicial to him since he is left with +- 6 years before he retires and has been working for his family all along. [11]  On 1 November 2022, the parties held a pretrial conference. They agreed that the only issue to be decided upon at trial was the forfeiture of the immovable property and the provident fund interest. Further that the onus of evidence lies with both Plaintiff and Defendant on the claim and counterclaim, respectively, whilst the Plaintiff had a duty to begin. [12] It is common cause that during the marriage in 2006, the Defendant was involved in an accident. She received the amount of R680 230.00 from the Road Accident Fund as compensation for damages she suffered as a result of the accident. [13]  Subsequent to the pretrial conference, the Defendant amended her plea and counterclaim whereupon she then claims in accordance with s 18 of the Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984 , that the Road Accident Fund compensation award of R680 230.00 (“RAF money”) she received in 2008 does not form part of the joint estate, it be declared to be her separate personal property and subtracted from the total value of the joint estate prior the distribution. She persisted with the order for forfeiture on the remainder of the joint estate. The Plaintiff did not respond to the Defendant’s amended Plea and Counterclaim. [14]  On 12 October 2023, following the Defendant’s amended Plea the parties held another pre-trial conference, whereupon the parties noted and agreed that the RAF money does not form part of the joint estate. It was to be declared the Defendant’s sole property and excluded from the joint estate. None of the parties recorded any prejudice as a result of such recognition. [15]  On 26 July 2024, the parties filed a joint practice note. Under a heading “nature of action,” the parties noted that the agreement reached by the parties at a pretrial conference held on 12 October 2023 was as agreed in the previous pretrial meeting of 1 November 2022 that, the RAF payout does not fall into the joint estate and was the Defendant’s sole property which ought to be excluded from the joint estate. The joint estate was notably valued at R655 877.24 at the time. [16]  The parties also further noted in their joint practice that the issue of forfeiture, plus the costs of the hearing when the matter was removed from the roll, on 10 August 2023 remained in dispute. They also noted in contradiction, that the subtraction of the RAF damages payout from the joint estate was an issue to be decided upon by the court as well, even though the parties had agreed that the payout did not form part of the joint estate. The parties were not in agreement on whether the Defendant as a fact used the whole money in the joint estate and put to the proof thereof. [17]  Plaintiff’s testimony during the trial was that he was kicked out of the matrimonial home on 9 June 2019. He however, stayed until 5 August 2019. It was very tough for him during that period. He tried to involve their families to talk to the Defendant. The Defendant refused to reconcile. She constantly belittled him in front of the children. His attempt and hope that they would sort out their problems did not work. He accepted that they were incompatible and moved out. He stays in a rented room. [18]  He remains in the same employment and a member of the provident fund. He contributed in the repayment of the Bond for the marital home. They are registered as co-owners of the house. He persists in seeking an order for the division of a joint estate on dissolution of their marriage. [19]  In relation to the Defendant’s RAF money, he testified that he is aware of it.  They already had a bond and both contributing to the repayments when the Defendant received the RAF money. The Defendant paid off the amount of +- R200 000 that was still owing on the Bond with the RAF money. She bought a motor vehicle for +-R98 000.00 which was registered in his name. It was, however, a family car as they drove in it together to go to work. The Defendant also bought new furniture and built a house for her mother. He knew this because he drove the Defendant to buy the material for her mother’s house. [20]  In 2016 he was involved in an accident and the vehicle was written off. Since he had insured the vehicle, the insurance paid him an amount of R42 000. He used the money to buy another vehicle. He disputes that the vehicle can only be the Defendant’s as she was not contributing to the repayments and the insurance. He agrees that they are co-owners of the new vehicle and was prepared to share it with her. He insisted on the division of the whole joint estate. [21]  Under cross examination he confirmed that he only started contributing towards the bond later in 2000 paying R600.00 which was deducted by his employer from his salary.  At the time the bond amount was R91 000.00. He confirmed that the amount was + R77 710.41 when it was settled on 6 June 2008. They took another Bond for R230 412.00. The repayments were R4000 per month and he continued with paying only R600.00. [22]  He insisted that he looked after the children when Defendant was at work. The Defendant’s sister helped to fetch them from school and creche whilst he started with the cooking. The furniture he bought was a TV, Microwave, a heater, and a bed. The value of the joint assets was R91 000 in 2000 which increased to +-R700 000 in 2023 as the house was extended. The purpose of the 2 nd bond/loan they took was to renovate the house. He then said that he knows that the Defendant used the money they borrowed from SA Home Loans to pay off the amount on the house. He confirmed that the Defendant on 28 July 2009 settled the second bond and in same year bought the car. [23]  It was put to him that on the renovations, the Defendant spent R10 000 to fix the roof of the house which was leaking. She built a carport for the motor vehicle and R46 000 was used for the kitchen cupboard, a TV, fridge for R23 000, a stove for R20 000, sofas for R20 000, a dining room suite with 6 chairs for R10 000. A TV stand for R4 000, Music System for R3000, Coffee table for R4 000 and beds for the children estimated value R7 000. After 2000 she paid school fees for the children. She continues to support two of their major children who are not self-supporting. [24]  He denied having an affair with JL but alleged that JL was his client and they were in a lift club together as she also works in Johannesburg. The Defendant and the children chased him out. He moved out to give them space to leave alone. [25]  He continued contributing even after the Defendant received the RAF money award. He paid for the groceries, school fees and nothing changed. Even though the Defendant did not want him anymore, he continued being a father, contributing to the joint estate’s improved value. [26]  He refuted the allegation that their daughter paid for the improvements at the Defendant’s mother’s house. He alleged to have driven the Defendant in the Toyota Corolla to go and buy the material for their bedroom renovations and her mother’s house. He was though not there when they renovated and evaluated the house in 2008 and could not remember when exactly was the house renovated. He denied that the Defendant renovated the house especially with the RAF money.  It was put to him that in 2008 and 2009 he was earning R5000.00. [27]  On re-examination he said he could not remember the Defendant renovating the house with the RAF money. SA Home Loans took over their R70 000 Bond debt and gave them a loan of R231 000 which they used for renovations. He does not know how the Defendant used the RAF money as he was not told anything. He also cannot dispute how she says she used it as she is the one who used the money. He only drove the vehicle. [28]  The Defendant’s testimony was that when she met the Plaintiff earlier in her career she was enrolled as a Nursing Assistant. They then stayed in her shack at a settlement with the children. In 2000 she started work at Kalafong Theatre earning R5 800 per month. She earned R8 000 when including allowances for overtime night duty. In the same year 2000 they took a bond with Standard Bank for a 2 bedroom house, which is their matrimonial home. Although she asked for the Plaintiff’s payslip, so that they can be granted the home loan from both their salaries, she alone paid the monthly repayments of R1 200 from 2000 until 2007. [29]  The Plaintiff realized that she was struggling when 2 of the children were at high school and the other two at primary school. He spoke to his employer and got his employer to deduct R600 that is half of the R1 200 instalment and pay it towards the bond repayments. [30]  A year later, in 2008 the Plaintiff got an offer of an increased amount from SA Home Loans. He asked SA Home Loans to contact her as he did not qualify for the loan by himself. They together completed the loan papers. They were granted a loan of R230 412.00. An amount of R150 000 was received in cash and R77 000 was paid to settle the bond with Standard Bank. The total bond amount was R270 000. They bought material with the cash to renovate the house. She fixed the roof as it leaked when it was raining. She paid a monthly instalment of R1 413.00 on the repayment whilst the Plaintiff continued to pay only R600. [31]  In 2009, a year later she received the RAF payment. She confirmed that the money was used to settle the amount outstanding on the bond, purchase a motor vehicle that was used by the Plaintiff and further renovate their house. The value of the property on being renovated increased to R717 000. The utilization of the money therefore resulted in the increase of the value of the estates. [32]  She gave the Plaintiff an amount of R10 000 to buy the material to fix the roof and paid R1 200 to the people who fixed it. The Plaintiff at the time went looking for a motor vehicle. He took her to Gezina to show her the vehicle he wanted. She paid an amount of R98 000 for the vehicle. The Plaintiff signed for its purchase as he had a licence and she didn’t. He was the everyday user of the vehicle. [33]  In 2016 the Plaintiff got involved in an accident and the vehicle was written off. He was paid an amount of R44 000 by the insurance. He used R30 000 thereof as a deposit to buy the vehicle he is presently driving. The Plaintiff demanded to be paid R100 for driving her to hospital when she was sick. She built a carport for the vehicle with the RAF money since they used the garage they built as a storage. She paid R10 000 plus R1 200 for the labour. [34]  The Defendant further claimed to have paid for other improvements of the house with the RAF money, including adding kitchen cupboards for R40 000, a bathroom and a dressing room in the main bedroom. Also to have bought sofas for R20 000, a dining room suite for R10 000, a TV stand for R4 000, a music system for R3 000, a TV, fridge and a stove for R23 000, a coffee table for R4 000, music system for R3 000 and curtains for R20 000. She also bought all the beds, that is 2 Twin beds and mattresses, at a cost of R6 000. She confirmed that the first twin beds were bought by her and when the children were older the Plaintiff bought them new bunk beds. [35]  She was responsible for the education of their children. She did not remember the Plaintiff paying anything for the children or contributing anything since she got the RAF money. She bought stationery for the children and paid for everything. They used to fight as he will take her to the shops and fold his arms whilst she bought and paid for everything. In 2009 they had a meeting with the Plaintiff’s mother. He said the education of the children was all in her hands. On 15 December when he got his bonus he always went to his family. [36]  In 2019, the Plaintiff started cheating on her with one Ms J L. On the day the Plaintiff alleges he was kicked out, Ms JL’s husband caught him and Ms JL in a car park and chased them to the house. The Plaintiff never denied when he was referred to as a home wrecker. The Plaintiff and J L’s affair started long ago, the Plaintiff even once represented JL at her work. She called both their mothers to come and sort out their problems. Plaintiff told her that his mother was too old and could not travel at night. She denied that the marriage broke down because she kicked the Defendant out. She admitted to have instead given him an ultimatum as he would get and answer JL's calls even when she was with him. [37]  The Defendant denied the allegation by the Plaintiff that she used her money to renovate her mother’s house but alleged that her daughter Debbie, an artisan at Impala Mine paid for the renovations for her grandmother. She reported to the Plaintiff when she received the money for the renovation from Debbie. [38]  She further denied that the Plaintiff raised the children stating that he failed to do so. When their eldest daughter passed matric, she asked him what they were going to do, he just told her that he has no money. She used her own money to register their eldest daughter at an institution. [39]  She confirmed that when she resigned she had money in a Provident Fund which she will share with the Plaintiff. She was still employed and earning an amount of R21 000 before deductions. Prior to receiving the RAF money she earned R8 000 a year, paid R2 700 sometimes R3 100 towards the SA Home Loan. The Plaintiff continued to only pay the R600 even on the new loan. [40]  She confirmed during her testimony that she was abandoning the forfeiture prayer and proceeding to only seek the deduction from the joint estate of the whole amount she received from the RAF. She confirmed that an amount of R75 000 for furniture is included in their joint estate besides the immovable property. The beds that the Plaintiff bought were offered to him when the new ones were bought in 2009.  She denied that she was unable to prove any other amount other than the R283 000 she paid towards the settlement of the S A Home Loan. [41]  The RAF money was used for the bigger things. She continued to use her salary for the upkeep of the house, children’s clothes, school fees and transport. She insisted that the RAF money that she paid to settle the SA Home Loan bond must be excluded from the joint estate. She did not mind the division of the remaining joint estate. Also, what she paid for the stove, kitchen cupboards, wall wardrobes and motor vehicle. She also paid up for the children’s education and clothes for the Plaintiff. [42]  The Plaintiff stopped contributing after she received the RAF money, even towards the children’s maintenance. She continued to work and contribute from her salary. She was aware that on divorce the joint estate is to be divided 50/50 between them. [43]  Ms D C, the couple’s daughter testified that the Plaintiff was a good man to the nation but his children were scared to ask him for anything because, he fought with them if they did. She sent the Defendant an amount of R10 000, sometimes R12 000, after every 3 months for the Defendant to finish building her grandmother’s house. The Defendant would then give her feedback as to what she did with the money. [44]  Under cross examination Ms DC could not say exactly when she started sending money to the Defendant for the renovations. She thought it could have been 2012. She did not know if the Defendant also contributed her own money to renovate her grandmother’s place.  The Defendant’s house was already done in 2009. Legal framework [45]  Marriage in community of property entails the spouses becoming co-owners in undivided and indivisible half shares of all the assets and liabilities they have at the time of entering a marriage and those they acquire during the marriage. Their estates become one estate [1] . [46]  The ordinary consequences of marriage in community of property is therefore that the property of the spouses is brought together in a joint estate to be owned by them in equal undivided shares. It is well recognised, however, that either spouse might also own separate property that is excluded from the joint estate. [2] [47]  Section 18 (a) of the Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984 (the Act”) excludes certain assets from being part of the joint estate and reads: Certain damages excluded from community and recoverable from other spouse Notwithstanding the fact that a spouse is married in community of property- (a) any amount recovered by him or her by way of damages, other than damages for patrimonial loss, by reason of a delict committed against him or her, does not fall into the joint estate but becomes his or her separate property; [48]  It being evident that non-patrimonial damages suffered by a spouse during the marriage are personal and excluded from forming part of the joint estate. An amount recovered by such a spouse therefore becomes his or her separate property. [3] In Van den Berg v Van den Berg [4] the compensation a spouse received, for damages found by the court to have arisen from a delict committed against such a spouse was deemed to fall outside the joint estate. Analysis [49]  The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed that there should be a division of the joint estate, with the Defendant abandoning her claim for forfeiture. The parties’ contentions regarding the reason for the breakup of their marriage and allegations of failure by the Plaintiff to contribute to the joint estate have as a result become irrelevant. They also agreed that s18 is applicable, that the RAF money received by the Defendant belonged to her alone, did not form and was not supposed to be part of the joint estate. [50]  They were still, however, not entirely agreed on the exact amount of the RAF money used by the Defendant for the benefit of the joint estate that is to be subtracted from the joint estate and how much is to be divided between the parties. [51]  According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant only settled the SA Home loan, bought the motor vehicle and furniture and renovated the kitchen with her RAF money. However only the amount she paid to settle the debt forms the Defendant’s separate property and was to be subtracted from the joint estate. The remainder is to be divided equally between the parties including the motor vehicle. [52]  The Defendant on the other hand seeks the total amount of the award, that is R683 860.95 to be deducted from the joint estate, as her separate property. The value of the joint estate as at the date of the trial was +- R1 717 000.00. On Defendant’s argument what is to be divided between the parties is an amount of R1 066 139.05 which is the remainder of her valuation of R1 755 000 minus R683 860.95.. [53]  Both parties have mentioned the fact that the loan from SA Home Loan was used to settle the Standard Bank bond of R77 000 and the rest received in cash. The cash was used to improve the marital home and buy furniture. Defendant’s evidence was that with the cash she bought the material to make improvements to their marital home. She fixed the roof that was leaking. It was also her evidence that the improvements made included the addition of another bedroom, an en suite bathroom and wall wardrobes in the main bedroom and a garage. [54]  They were granted a loan of R230 412.00. The total loan amount that was to be repaid was R270 000. The Plaintiff confirmed that the SA Home Loan debt of R235 095.75 was settled by the Defendant in 2009 after she received the RAF money.  Also, that it was to be subtracted from the joint estate. The amount therefore is to be deducted from the joint estate. [55]  The Plaintiff likewise confirmed that the Defendant bought a vehicle for R98 000 with the RAF money. It was chosen and registered in his name and solely driven by him. He claimed that it was used also to drive the Defendant around and disputed that he profited in anyway by getting the vehicle. However, he personally benefitted as he confirmed to have used the car for a lift club arrangement with Ms JL with whom he is accused of having an affair. He paid for its insurance since he was the driver of the vehicle and received the benefits of insurance which he used to buy another car. He  on that basis, claimed and was prepared to share the car with the Defendant. [56]  The substance and purpose of the non-patrimonial damages remain distinct as the separate property of the Defendant, intended to ameliorate any postulated future sufferings and inconveniences. It therefore cannot be shared with, transferred to or used for the benefit of the Plaintiff. [5] The nature and objective of the RAF money cannot be altered by the fact that it was used in the improvement of the joint estate or for the benefit of the other spouse. Personality rights, per definition, never form part of the assets of any patrimonial estate and simply should not be shared because the matrimonial property regime happens to be in community of property. [57] The amount of R98 000 paid to purchase the vehicle is consequently to be subtracted from the joint estate. [58]  The Plaintiff has indicated that the exact improvement effected by the Defendant with the RAF money cannot be pinpointed. He was not told when or for what else the money was used. As a result, he was not aware of any such improvements. The Standard Bank Home Loan money with which the structural improvements were effected was received in 2008. The Defendant received the RAF money a year later in 2009. He therefore argued that the onus was therefore on the Defendant to prove what she did with the RAF money and that it was recoverable from the joint estate. [59]  The Plaintiff was, however, disingenuous to allege not to have seen the improvements. It is highly unlikely that as an occupant of the house for such a long time he could have overlooked the structural changes referred to when he was able to identify all the improvements effected with the SA Home loan. He also had testified that Defendant only settled the SA Home loan, bought the motor vehicle and furniture and renovated the kitchen with her RAF money. [60]  According to the Defendant she had, with the RAF money, built a carport for the vehicle since the garage they built was used as a storage. She paid an amount of R10 000 plus R1 200 for the Labour. The Plaintiff did not dispute the existence of the carport and consequently the Defendant is entitled to be reimbursed the R11 200 she paid for the carport which effectively improved the value of the house. [61]  The Defendant has also alleged to have paid for other improvements of the house, including adding kitchen cupboards for R40 000, a bathroom and a dressing room in the main bedroom. The improvements in the main bedroom and the rooftop that effectively increased the value of their house were already effected using the subtractable loan. The amount for the kitchen cupboards if proven that it was paid for with the RAF money is subtractable. The Plaintiff has not denied that the kitchen was improved by the Defendant by adding cupboards and had cost the Defendant +-  R40 000 that is to be subtracted from the joint estate. [62]  Furthermore, the Defendant mentioned having purchased furniture with the RAF money which is detachable household goods. The goods remain the separate property of the Defendant and separable from the joint estate. The ownership remained solely with the Defendant notwithstanding that the Plaintiff and the adult children had access to usage. Consequently, the items are to be declared the separate property of the Defendant. Costs [63]  The Defendant had started by seeking forfeiture, prior to agreeing to the division of the joint estate which is minus her non-patrimonial property. Under the circumstances it would be fair and just that each party pays its own cost. [64]  Under the circumstances the following order is made: 1. The Decree of divorce is granted; 2. The following amounts are to be deducted from the total value of the joint estate and declared to be the separate property of the Defendant: 2.1.     The amount of R 235 095.75, paid by the Defendant in settlement of the SA Home Loan; 2.2.     The amount of R98 000 paid by the Defendant to purchase the motor vehicle; 2.3.     The amount of R11 500 paid by the Defendant to built a carport; 2.4.    The amount of R40 000 paid by the Defendant for the kitchen cupboard; 3. The following movables are declared the separate property of the Defendant and not to form the joint estate. 3.1     Sofas; 3.2     Dining room suite for R10 000; 3.3     A TV and the TV stand; 3.4     The music system for R3 000; 3.5     The fridge; 3.6     A stove; 3.7     A coffee table; 3.8     Curtains and 3.9     all the beds 4. The division of the remainder of the joint estate. 5. Each party is to pay its own costs in the divorce action N.V. Khumalo Judge of the High Court Gauteng Division, Pretoria For the Applicant:                     Adv R Andrews Instructed by:                           RM Bollaert Attorneys Richard@rmb-attorneys.co.za 011 4634511 For the Defendant :                  G Mothemane Mothemane Given Attorneys Instructed by: mothemaneattorneys@gmail.com [1] De Wet v Jurgens 1970 3 SA 38 (A) [2] Erasmus v Erasmus 1942 AD 265 [3] Supra, and LH v ZH 2022 (1) SA 384 (SCA) [4] 2003 (6) SA 229 (T) [5] Van de Berg Supra, para 12 sino noindex make_database footer start