Case Law[2023] ZAGPJHC 1238South Africa
P.N v B.M (427/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1238 (26 October 2023)
High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)
26 October 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 1238
|
Noteup
|
LawCite
sino index
## P.N v B.M (427/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1238 (26 October 2023)
P.N v B.M (427/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1238 (26 October 2023)
Download original files
PDF format
RTF format
make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2023_1238.html
sino date 26 October 2023
SAFLII
Note:
Certain
personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been
redacted from this document in compliance with the law
and
SAFLII
Policy
IN THE HIGH COURT
OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION,
JOHANNESBURG)
CASE NO: 427 / 2021
In the matter between:
P.N
Applicant
And
B.M
Respondent
Delivered:
Delivery:
This judgment was
handed down electronically by circulation to the parties' legal
representatives by email, and uploaded on caselines
electronic
platform. The date for hand-down is deemed to be26 October 2023.
JUDGMENT
CORAM: VAN NIEKERK AJ
1.
This is an application terms of which
uniform rule 43, wherein the applicant seeks an order that:
1.1
the Family Advocate’s recommendations
incorporating the contact agreement be made an order of court;
1.2
specific parental responsibilities and
rights with regard to contact to the minor children, as contemplated
in section 18(2)(b)
of the Children’s Act 38 of 2005 (“
the
children’s act
”), to be
exercised by the parties in the following manner, as endorsed by the
office of the Family Advocate:
1.2.1
residence of the minor children to
alternate on a weekly basis from a Friday after school until the
following the Friday when the
minor children will be dropped off at
school;
1.2.2
daily telephonic and/or any form of
electronic contact is to be exercised by both parties when the minor
children are in the care
of the other party between 06h30 and 07h00
and between 19h00 and 20h00;
1.2.3
the weekend of Mother’s Day and
Father’s Day, respectively, to be spent with the respective
party from Friday after
school until Sunday 19h00;
1.2.4
long weekends to alternate between the
parties from after-school the day before the long weekend begins
until 13h00 on the last
day of the long weekend;
1.2.5
when the minor children’s birthdays
for on a weekday, the non-contact/non-resident party will spend time
with the children
from after-school until Sunday 19h00;
1.2.6
the June/July school holidays to alternate
and be shared on the following basis:
1.2.6.1
the first half of the holiday will commence
from after-school, the day school closes until 19h00 on the day which
constitutes the
middle day of the holiday, whereafter the second half
of the holiday will commence until 19h00 two days prior to the
re-opening
of schools;
1.2.6.2
the first half of the June/July holiday to
be spent with the applicant;
1.2.6.3
the December school holidays to be shared
and alternate;
1.2.6.4
the first half of the holiday will commence
from after-school, the day school closes until 19h00 27 December,
whereafter the second
half of the holiday will commence, until 19h00
two days prior to the re-opening of schools;
1.2.6.5
the first half of the December school
holiday to be spent with the applicant;
1.2.6.6
public holidays that are not attached to a
long weekend to form part of the residency;
1.2.6.7
short school holidays to alternate between
the parties.
1.3
the respondent contributes towards her
monthly maintenance in an amount of R3,500.00;
1.4
the respondent contributes towards the two
oldest children’s stationary;
1.5
the respondent contributes towards the two
oldest children’s school fees;
1.6
the respondent contributes an amount of
R3,500.00 towards the applicant’s Standard Bank home loan;
1.7
the respondent contributes an amount of
R20,000.00 towards and legal costs, which amount is payable in four
equal instalments of
5,000.00 each; and
1.8
the respondent pays the costs of this
application on an attorney and own client scale.
2.
Only proprietary aspects of the divorce are
in dispute between the parties, and they agree that an order relating
to their contact
with the minor children may be made in the terms as
set out above.
3.
The applicant instituted divorce
proceedings against the respondent in and during or about September
2021 (“
the divorce action
”).
4.
In and during or about June 2022, the
applicant instituted an application in terms of uniform rule 43, in
terms of which she sought
interim relief pending the finalisation of
the divorce action, including maintenance for herself and the minor
children and a contribution
towards her legal costs.
5.
The applicant also sought orders relating
to the contact rights to be exercised in respect of the minor
children, but this aspect
has now been resolved by agreement between
the parties, which agreement is in accordance with recommendations
made by the office
of the Family Advocate. Thus, matters surrounding
contact with the minor children are no longer controversial and the
parties have
asked that an order, in accordance with the Family
Advocate’s recommendations, be made an order of court.
6.
Therefore, these proceedings relate solely
to maintenance issues.
7.
In his replying affidavit, which is dated 6
July 2022, the respondent tendered to pay a rental deposit on behalf
of the applicant
and to contribute an amount of R3,500 per month, as
a cash contribution, pending the outcome of the divorce action.
8.
Payment of the amounts referred to above
were to be made in order to facilitate the applicant relocating to a
rental property which
is in closer proximity to the respondent’s
place of residence, thereby making contact with the minor children
easier.
9.
I am told that the applicant accepted this
tender and that the respondent duly made payment of the tendered
rental deposit, but
that he failed to make payment of the monthly
contribution in an amount of R3,500.00 per month, and that this
failure necessitated
the rule 43 application being re-enrolled for
hearing.
10.
Both the applicant and the respondent have
delivered supplementary affidavits in order to provide updated
details relating to, in
particular, their respective financial
positions.
11.
The parties’ respective supplementary
affidavits have been received, in order to ensure the hearing of this
matter on all
of the available facts.
12.
In heads of argument delivered on behalf of
the applicant, it was submitted that:
12.1
the applicant has a net monthly salary of
R21,622.79;
12.2
the applicant’s total personal
monthly expenses amount to R17,893.51;
12.3
the applicant expends an amount of
R12,331.00 per month on expenses related to the minor children;
12.4
the applicant has a deficit, in an amount
of R11,301.74, and that she has no means to cover her reasonable
monthly expenses.
13.
In his supplementary affidavit, which
contains updated information regarding his financial position, the
respondent alleges, under
oath, that his “
primary
source of income
” is derived from
rental received from an immovable property situate at […],
Eastleigh, Edenvale (“
the Georgina
property
”). The rental which he
receives from the Georgina property amounts to R16,000.00 per month.
14.
Coincidentally, the respondent’s
monthly expenses amount to R16,000.00 per month.
15.
Accordingly, the respondent contends that
he is not able to afford to make payment of the R3,500.00 per month
which he had tendered
in his previous replying affidavit.
16.
However, during argument it appeared that a
total amount of R181,080.60 was deposited into the respondents
current account on 1
July 2023 and 11 July 2023, respectively.
Counsel for the respondent, correctly, conceded that the respondent
had not dealt, at
all, with the payment of amounts in excess of
R180,000.00 supplementary replying affidavit.
17.
The respondent’s failure to explain
deposits in excess of R180,000.00 into his current account in the
month of July 2023 constitute
a material nondisclosure on his part.
18.
It is trite that there is a duty on parties
in rule 43 applications to act with the utmost good faith, and to
disclose fully all
material information regarding their financial
affairs.
19.
Turning to the applicant’s need for
maintenance.
20.
In tendering payment of a monthly
contribution of R3,500.00, in his initial replying affidavit, the
respondent acknowledged the
applicant’s need for such a
payment. The fact that the respondent is now allegedly unable to make
this payment does not derogate
from this acknowledgement. The
unexplained deposits in a cumulative amount in excess of R180,000.00,
in the month of July 2023,
suggest that the respondent is in a
financial position to make payment of the monthly amount of
R3,500.00, as he had previously
tendered and that he is not being
candid in his financial disclosures.
21.
Having regard to the maintenance needs in
respect of the minor children, the applicant alleges that her monthly
contribution towards
the maintenance of the minor children is an
amount of R12,331.00 per month. This amount does not include a
contribution, on the
part of the minor children, towards rental,
because the list of expenses provided by the applicant, was compiled
before she rented
a property closer to the respondent’s place
of residence. The list of expenses provided by the applicant in her
supplementary
founding affidavit is not particularly helpful, as it
refers only to medical aid expenses, the cost of stationery, the cost
of
winter uniforms, school fees for the oldest two of the three minor
children and a standard bank home loan instalment of R3,500.00
per
month.
22.
Accepting the more detailed list of
expenses as contained in her original founding affidavit, even though
these expenses are more
than a year out of date, it is apparent that
(excluding rental), the applicant’s monthly maintenance
obligation, in respect
of the minor children, is in the vicinity of
R12,000.00 per month.
23.
In his supplementary replying affidavit
dated 29 September 2023, the respondent alleges that his monthly
maintenance obligation
respect of the minor children is R16,000.00
per month. This includes payment of an amount of R4,200.00 per month,
in respect of
a nanny for the minor children. The applicant’s
list of expenses contain no contribution towards a nanny.
24.
If the amount of R4200.00 per month is
deducted from the applicant’s R16,000.00 per month contribution
towards the maintenance
of the minor children, it is apparent that
there is parity between the contributions made by each of the
respective parties towards
the monthly maintenance of the minor
children.
25.
Under the circumstances, it seems fair that
the respondent contributes an equal amount towards the stationery
expenses of the two
oldest minor children, being L M and L M.
26.
Insofar as a monthly contribution towards
the applicant’s standard bank home loan is concerned, no case
has been made out
in her founding affidavit, or her supplementary
founding affidavit, in this regard.
27.
In
assessing the applicant’s entitlement to, and the quantum of, a
contribution towards the applicant’s costs, the court
exercises
its discretion. Regard must be had to the dominant object of the
rule, namely to enable the other spouse to present
her case
adequately.
28.
Regard
must also be had to the circumstances of the case, the financial
position of the parties and the particular issues involved
in the
pending litigation.
29.
Regarding the
applicants claim for a contribution towards her legal costs, it is
significant that neither of the parties to the
litigation appear to
be wealthy and/or in a position to fund extravagant litigation.
Although, the respondent’s failure to
explain deposits of
approximately R180,000.00 into his current account in July 2023
raises a concern regarding the candour with
which he has disclosed
his financial position.
30.
Moreover, the issues
in dispute between the parties are proprietary in nature and are not
particularly complex, which is particularly
so when one has regard to
the respective parties’ financial positions.
31.
The applicant’s claim for a
contribution towards her costs in an amount of R20,000.00 is not
extortionate, and is less than
the estimate given to her by her
attorneys of record, which estimate amounts to R23,000.00 up until
trial.
32.
Bearing in mind the undisclosed deposits
amounting to in excess of R180,000.00 in the month of July 2023, it
seems that the respondent
has the financial means to contribute
towards approximately half of the applicant’s anticipated costs
(as per the estimate
given to her by her attorneys), which will
enable her to adequately put her case forward.
33.
In the circumstances, I make an order in
the following terms:
1.
specific parental responsibilities and
rights with regard to contact to the minor children, as contemplated
in section 18(2)(b)
of the Children’s Act 38 of 2005 (“
the
children’s act
”), to be
exercised by the parties in the following manner, and as endorsed by
the office of the Family Advocate:
1.1 residence of the
minor children to alternate on a weekly basis from a Friday after
school until the following the Friday when
the minor children will be
dropped off at school;
1.2 daily telephonic
and/or any form of electronic contact is to be exercised by both
parties when the minor children are in the
care of the other party
between 06h30 and 07h00 and between 19h00 and 20h00;
1.3 the weekend of
Mother’s Day and Father’s Day, respectively, to be spent
with the respective party from Friday after
school until Sunday
19h00;
1.4 long weekends to
alternate between the parties from after school the day before the
long weekend begins until 13h00 on the last
day of the long weekend;
1.5 when the minor
children’s birthdays fall on a weekday, the
non-contact/non-resident party will spend time with the children
from
after school until 19h00;
1.6 when the minor
children’s birthdays fall over a weekend, the
non-contact/non-resident party shall spend time with them
from 12h00
to 18h00;
1.7 when the parties’
birthdays fall over a weekend, he/she shall spend that weekend with
the minor children from Friday after
school until Sunday 19h00;
1.8 when the parties’
birthdays fall on a weekday, he/she will spend that weekend with the
minor children from Friday after
school until Sunday 19h00;
1.7. the June/July
school holidays to alternate and be shared on the following basis:
1.7.1 the first half of
the holiday will commence from after school, the day school closes,
until 19h00 on the day which constitutes
the middle day of the
holiday, whereafter the second half of the holiday will commence
until 19h00 two days prior to the re-opening
of schools;
1.7.2 the first half of
the June/July holiday to be spent with the applicant;
1.8 the December school
holidays to be shared and alternate as follows
1.8.1 the first half of
the holiday will commence from after-school, the day school closes
until 19h00 27 December, whereafter the
second half of the holiday
will commence, until 19h00 two days prior to the re-opening of
schools; and
1.8.2 the first half of
the December school holiday to be spent with the applicant.
1.9 public holidays
that are not attached to a long weekend to form part of the
residency; and
1.10 short school
holidays to alternate between the parties.
2.
the respondent is directed to make payment
of an amount of R3,500.00, per month, towards the maintenance of the
applicant;
3.
the respondent is directed to make payment
of an amount equivalent to 50% of the cost of L M and L M’s
stationery expenses;
4.
the respondent is directed to make payment
of a contribution towards the applicant’s legal costs in an
amount of R12,000.00,
payable in four equal instalments of R3,000.00
each, commencing on the first of the month following date of this
order; and
5.
costs of the rule 43 application to be
costs in the cause.
D Van Niekerk AJ
REPRESENTATIVES:
For
the applicant:
Adv
Tumelo Loabile -Rantao
Attorney
for the applicant:
Weavind
and Weavind Inc.
For
the respondent:
Adv.
Tonia Carstens
Attorneys
for the respondent:
Theron
Inc
Hearing date: 13 October
2023
Delivered: 26 October
2023
sino noindex
make_database footer start
Similar Cases
N.N.P v C.B.S and Others (2021/59500) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1357 (21 November 2023)
[2023] ZAGPJHC 1357High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)100% similar
P.S v C.S (2022/13638) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1169 (17 October 2023)
[2023] ZAGPJHC 1169High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)100% similar
P.P v V.P (027686/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1345 (21 November 2023)
[2023] ZAGPJHC 1345High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)100% similar
P.S.M v R.V.M (34561/2019) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1170 (6 October 2023)
[2023] ZAGPJHC 1170High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)100% similar
P.N v Z.N (A2024/033757) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1105 (15 October 2024)
[2024] ZAGPJHC 1105High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)100% similar