Case Law[2024] ZAGPPHC 572South Africa
O.N.M v A.N.M (70078/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 572 (26 June 2024)
Headnotes
although the criteria set in section 7(2) of the Divorce Court applies specifically to divorce, as opposed to Rule 43 applications, it considered that there is no harm in adapting the criteria to proceedings in terms of Rule 43. The factors include, inter alia, “the existing or prospective means of the parties, their respective earning capacities, financial needs and obligations, the age of each of the parties, the duration of the marriage, the standard of living of the parties prior to the divorce, and any other factor which in the opinion of the court should be taken into account.”
Judgment
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
>>
2024
>>
[2024] ZAGPPHC 572
|
Noteup
|
LawCite
sino index
## O.N.M v A.N.M (70078/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 572 (26 June 2024)
O.N.M v A.N.M (70078/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 572 (26 June 2024)
Download original files
PDF format
RTF format
make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2024_572.html
sino date 26 June 2024
SAFLII
Note:
Certain
personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been
redacted from this document in compliance with the law
and
SAFLII
Policy
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE
Number: 70078/2023
(1)
REPORTABLE:
YES
/NO
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES:
YES
/NO
(3)
REVISED: YES/NO
26/06/2024
In
the matters between: -
O[...]
N[...] M[...]
APPLICANT
And
A[...]
N[...] M[...]
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
BAQWA,
Introduction
[1]
The parties herein are involved in divorce proceedings and there are
two minor children born of the
marriage namely L[...] S[...] M[...]
(11 years old) and G[...] L[...] M[...] (7-year-old).
[2] The applicant brought
an application in terms of the Uniform Rules of Court for primary
care and residency of the two minor
children of the marriage pending
finalisation of the family advocate’s investigation and
recommendations to this court.
[3] After the applicant
issued the Rule 43 application the respondent issued a counterclaim
about twelve months after she departed
from the matrimonial home. She
claims maintenance for the minor children, spousal maintenance and a
contribution towards costs.
[4] After the respondent
set the matter down for hearing on 15 April 2024, the court found
that the matter was not ripe for hearing
with the respondent having
filed her financial disclosure on 13 April 2024.
[5] It was agreed between
the parties that the matter pertaining to spousal maintenance,
maintenance for the children and contribution
to costs be postponed
until the parties had exchanged their financial disclosure documents
with an interim order.
[6] The matter was
referred to the family advocate for an investigation and the parties
agreed that in the interim the primary residency
would be with the
respondent subject to applicant’s right to contact.
[7] In the interim it was
agreed that the applicant would continue to pay school fees and the
expenses of the minor children directly
to the suppliers for school
clothes, airtime and data, clothes and school outings and that the
applicant should contribute R1000.00
per month, per child.
[8] The applicant
returned the BMW vehicle with registration number J[...] 3[...]
V[...] G[...] to the respondent.
[9] According to
respondent’s income and expenditure account she had a short
fall of R9110.82 and she claimed spousal maintenance
of R15 000.00.
[10] It was however
conceded by her counsel that she had not made out a case for spousal
maintenance in her papers supporting the
counterclaim.
[11] Whilst it is true
that the minor children reside with the respondent together with the
respondent’s parents where they
are cared for and that the
applicant pays for some of their needs as indicated above, it is not
denied that the respondent remains
the main person to look after the
minor children 24/7 whilst the applicant is relieved of that
responsibility in the interim. The
applicant has to therefore take
care of the children’s basic needs on a daily basis and the
applicant ought not to shift
his duty to maintain his children to the
respondent’s parents.
[12] In
VS
v AS
[1]
the court held that although the criteria set in section 7(2) of the
Divorce Court applies specifically to divorce, as opposed
to Rule 43
applications, it considered that there is no harm in adapting the
criteria to proceedings in terms of Rule 43. The factors
include,
inter alia, “the existing or prospective means of the parties,
their respective earning capacities, financial needs
and obligations,
the age of each of the parties, the duration of the marriage, the
standard of living of the parties prior to the
divorce, and any other
factor which in the opinion of the court should be taken into
account.”
[13] Considering all of
the above factors and the fact that the respondent currently has the
primary residency of the minor children
and despite the fact that the
applicant provides for some of the needs of the children, I consider
the cash contribution of R1000.00
per month child to be wholly
inadequate, hence the award of the amount of R5000.00 cash
contribution per month per child.
[14] Considering that an
order was made 15 April 2024, I make an order varying that order as
follows:
Order
[15.1] The order granted
on 15 April 2024 is varied as follows:
[15.2] That the applicant
continues to pay school fees and the following the following expenses
of the minor children directly to
the different suppliers:
15.1.1 School clothes
15.1.2 Airtime and data
15.1.3 Clothes
15.1.4 School outing
[15.3]
The applicant to pay an amount of R5000.00 per month, per child to
the respondent, into the respondent nominated account
on the 15
th
of every month as from 15 July 2024.
[15.4]
Each party pays their own costs.
SELBY BAQWA
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA
Date
of hearing: 12 June 2024
Date
of judgment: 26 June 2024
Appearance
On
behalf of the Applicants
Adv M
Coetzee
Instructed
by
Gerneke
& Potgieter Attorneys Inc
madcoet@gmail.com
On
behalf of the Respondents
Adv T
Makopo
Instructed
by
Rantho
& Association Incorporated
tsebomakopo@gmail.com
[1]
(
12496/2019)
2020 ZAGPJHC 27 (11 February 2020)
sino noindex
make_database footer start
Similar Cases
M.N v A.L.N (094387/23) [2024] ZAGPPHC 402 (22 April 2024)
[2024] ZAGPPHC 402High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)99% similar
N.N v S.M.A (093796/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 504 (24 May 2024)
[2024] ZAGPPHC 504High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)99% similar
N.P v M.N.P (43650/2018) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1108 (17 October 2024)
[2024] ZAGPPHC 1108High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)99% similar
O.M.L v S.S.L (10528/2022) [2025] ZAGPPHC 712 (16 July 2025)
[2025] ZAGPPHC 712High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)99% similar
A.L.N v G.N.N N.O and Another (2024-148137) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1364 (21 December 2024)
[2024] ZAGPPHC 1364High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)99% similar