Former husband's pension attached for maintenance

In what is seen as a landmark ruling, a mother of two has been awarded R100 000 in outstanding maintenance payments over five years from her former husband for their 10-year-old son. According to a report in The Star, Justice Minister Brigitte Mabandla handed Jane Johnson the cheque as apart of her department's Operation Isondlo. Johnson obtained an order allowing the state to pay her a portion of her former husband's pension after she discovered he was leaving his job. A maintenance investigating officer found that the resignation benefits had already been deposited in the respondent's bank account and invested offshore. An urgent court order was granted for the nullification of the transactions and an attachment order was put in place.
Full report in The Star

 

Supplied courtesy of Legalbrief Today.

 

Equality Court rules in favour of white magistrate

The Equality Court has ruled in favour of a white magistrate in his case of unfair discrimination against the Port Elizabeth Magistrates’ Court over the appointment of a black female candidate. The Equality Court, says a report by The Herald, ruled that the Magistrates’ Court’s short-listing procedures with regard to appointing Regional Court magistrates discriminated unfairly against white male applicants. The procedures made it impossible for a white male to be promoted over a black female, irrespective of experience or any other non-race factors. This, the Equality Court said, was ‘unfair discrimination’, rather than ‘fair discrimination’, which was endorsed by the court with regards to employment equity. In the case of Magistrates Ignatius du Preez, Judge Andre Erasmus ruled that the Justice Minister had failed to prove that the discrimination against the white magistrate was fair. He ordered that the existing criteria for short-listing of candidates be set aside, the posts be re-advertised and that the minister pay the legal costs. According to the report, a second Magistrate, Neels Goosen, has brought a similar application to the High Court in its capacity as an Equality Court.
Full report in The Herald

 

Supplied courtesy of Legalbrief Today.

 

Woman successfully challenges Matrimonial Property Act

The Cape High Court recently handed down a ruling in favour of a woman who challenged the constitutional validity of a section of the Matrimonial Property Act. Vanessa van der Merwe went to court after the Road Accident Fund refused to pay damages in an accident claim. Van der Merwe had claimed after her former husband ran over her twice in his car in 1999, reports Business Day. The fund disputed its liability because an injured person, married in community of property, may not sue for damages arising from an offence that a spouse has committed. Van der Merwe argued in court the section infringed her right to equality contained in the Constitution. The section applies only to people married in community of property. Acting Judge Thandazwa Ndita ruled in September that by use of the words ‘other than damages for patrimonial loss’, the section unfairly discriminated on the grounds of marital status against spouses married in community of property. Patrimonial loss covers the loss of income and income-earning capacity, and medical expenses she had to incur because of her injuries.

Constitutional Court strikes blow against spousal abuse

The Constitutional Court struck a blow against spousal abuse when it ruled on the constitutionality of the Domestic Violence Act, Act 118 of 1998, dismissing an application for leave to appeal by Ahmed Raffik Omar, whose claim that the Act infringed on his right to a fair trial had been rejected by the Natal Provincial Division of the High Court. The case stemmed from an abusive relationship between Omar and his wife, which resulted in several protection orders being issued against him. Omar’s challenge was against Section 8 of the Act, which provides that, under certain circumstances, a member of the SA Police Service could arrest Omar if the police officer had reasonable grounds to believe that his wife was in imminent danger (a suspended warrant of arrest). Omar contended this was unconstitutional, as it infringed on his right to a fair trial, which includes the right to be informed of the charge against him, the right to be presumed innocent, and the right to remain silent; as well as his right to freedom and security of the person.
Judgment (PDF file)
See also a report on the IoL site

Supplied courtesy of Legalbrief Today.

 

High Court rules Maintenance Courts have extended powers

The Cape High Court has handed down a landmark ruling in a maintenance case. The court, reports the Cape Times, has ruled that Maintenance Courts can grant any order to ensure that maintenance orders are satisfied. This includes interdicting institutions from making payments to maintenance defaulters so that the money can be made to complainants instead. Previously, complainants had to consult advocates and approach the High Court – a step which has proved too costly for many. The ruling, by Justice Deon van Zyl, was made in the case of a woman who took action against the maintenance magistrate and maintenance officer of a Wynberg Maintenance Court after battling for 10 years to obtain monthly maintenance for her son. The Maintenance Court said it was unable to assist her in granting an order to obtain funds from the maintenance defaulter’s pension. Judge Van Zyl granted an order confirming that the Maintenance Act provided the Maintenance Court with extensive jurisdiction to make any order to enforce a maintenance order which had not been satisfied.
Full Cape Times report