Case Law[2023] ZAGPJHC 4South Africa
J.W v N.W (2019/26732) [2023] ZAGPJHC 4 (9 January 2023)
High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)
9 January 2023
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: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
You are here:
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
>>
2023
>>
[2023] ZAGPJHC 4
|
Noteup
|
LawCite
sino index
## J.W v N.W (2019/26732) [2023] ZAGPJHC 4 (9 January 2023)
J.W v N.W (2019/26732) [2023] ZAGPJHC 4 (9 January 2023)
Download original files
PDF format
RTF format
make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2023_4.html
sino date 9 January 2023
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG
LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG)
Case No.
2019/26732
REPORTABLE:
NO
OF INTEREST TO
OTHER JUDGES: NO
REVISED.
9 January 2023
In the matter
between:
JJVW
Applicant
and
NVW
Respondent
##### JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT
WILSON
J
:
1
On 18 October 2022, I granted an order suspending the obligation
of
the respondent, Mr. VW, to pay interim maintenance to the applicant,
Mrs. VW. That obligation was imposed in terms of a court
order
granted by my brother Budlender AJ on 29 November 2019. I gave Mrs.
VW the opportunity to file financial disclosures which
would allow me
to assess Mr. VW’s claim that she was no longer in need of the
maintenance payments Budlender AJ ordered.
2
On 17 November 2022, Mrs VW filed her financial disclosure
forms. On
23 November 2022, I ordered Mr. VW to show cause why, in light of the
contents of those disclosures, I should not lift
the suspension I
placed on Budlender AJ’s order.
3
Mr. VW filed his supplementary affidavit on 30 November
2022. On 14
December 2022, having read the allegations made in Mr. VW’s
affidavit in light of the contents of Mrs. VW’s
financial
disclosures, I ordered that the suspension of Budlender AJ’s
order be lifted with effect from 1 December 2022.
I also refused Mr.
VW’s application for the return of a motor vehicle of which
Mrs. VW had use in terms of Budlender AJ’s
order.
4
I indicated that my reasons for making the 14 December
2022 order
would follow in due course. These are my reasons.
5
Mr. VW’s case from the outset has been that Mrs.
VW is no
longer in need of the maintenance provided for in Budlender AJ’s
order, because she is working as an escort, and
making anywhere
between R88 000 and R153 000 per month doing so. While there has
never been any real dispute that Mrs. VW has taken
up work as an
escort, Mrs. VW has always denied that her income from being an
escort exceeds a few thousand rand a month.
6
In his application to vary Budlender AJ’s order,
Mr. VW’s
allegations about Mrs. VW’s earnings were not based on Mr. VW’s
personal knowledge, or on documents
directly evidencing Mrs. VW’s
income. They were instead based on a series of inferences drawn on a
private investigator’s
report and a set of internet
advertisements for Mrs. VW’s services. Mrs. VW met these
allegations with bare denials.
7
Ms. De Wet, who appeared for Mr. VW, urged me to apply
the
Plascon-Evans
test, as amplified in
Wightman t/a J
W Construction v Headfour (Pty) Ltd
[2008] ZASCA 6
;
2008 (3) SA 371
(SCA), paragraph 13, to reject Mrs. VW’s
version, and to accept Mr. VW’s calculations as undisputed. I
was not inclined
to do this, primarily because Mr. VW’s case
was reliant in large part on inferences drawn from a private
investigator’s
report that had not been confirmed under oath.
This was unsteady ground on which to make a finding. I was also
reluctant to make
an order that would result in undue financial
hardship for Mrs. VW, especially as that hardship could only harm the
prospect of
her being able to strengthen her relationship with Mr.
and Mrs. VW’s minor child, SA.
8
It was for those reasons, recorded in my judgment of 18
October 2022,
that I suspended Budlender AJ’s order, and gave Mrs. VW the
opportunity to file her financial disclosures.
9
Those disclosures provide no indication that Mrs. VW earns
a regular
or substantial income from being an escort, or from any source other
than Mr. VW’s maintenance payments. In his
supplementary
affidavit of 30 November 2022, Mr. VW could not really take the
matter any further. He continued to rely on the private
investigator’s report to press a series of inferences that Mrs.
VW is being dishonest about her income, and is hiding additional
bank
accounts and sources of income from the court.
10
That may be true, but Mr. VW’s case that it is true is
speculative
and unsupported by any direct evidence placed under oath.
In order to succeed in being finally relieved of his maintenance
obligations,
Mr. VW had to allege and prove, on a balance of
probabilities, a material change in Mrs. VW’s circumstances in
the form of
a substantially increased income. When read in light of
Mrs. VW’s financial disclosures, Mr. VW’s case, the
evidentiary
foundation of which was never expanded beyond the private
investigator’s report and the internet advertisements,
ultimately
falls short of that standard.
11
It was for these reasons that I lifted the suspension on Budlender
AJ’s
order, and refused Mr. VW’s application for the
return of the motor vehicle made available for Mrs. VW’s use in
terms
of that order.
S
D J WILSON
Judge
of the High Court
This
judgment was prepared and authored by Judge Wilson. It is handed down
electronically by circulation to the parties or their
legal
representatives by email and by uploading it to the electronic file
of this matter on Caselines. The date for hand-down is
deemed to be 9
January 2023.
DECIDED
ON:
9
January 2023
For
the Applicant: A
A De Wet SC
Instructed
by Moumakoe
Clay Inc
For
the Respondents:
LK
van der Merwe
Instructed
by Malan
Kruger Inc
sino noindex
make_database footer start
Similar Cases
N.W.M v N.Q.M and Another (2018/39527) [2023] ZAGPJHC 956 (16 August 2023)
[2023] ZAGPJHC 956High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)99% similar
W.L v W.B.L (2022-015956) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1189 (15 September 2023)
[2023] ZAGPJHC 1189High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)99% similar
W.J v K.W and Another (2018/29229) [2024] ZAGPJHC 834 (26 August 2024)
[2024] ZAGPJHC 834High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)99% similar
J.W v B.T (2022/022689) [2025] ZAGPJHC 120 (17 February 2025)
[2025] ZAGPJHC 120High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)99% similar
J.M v N.C (2023/00100) [2024] ZAGPJHC 762 (16 August 2024)
[2024] ZAGPJHC 762High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)99% similar