About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Eastern Cape High Court, East London Local Court
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Eastern Cape High Court, East London Local Court
>>
2022
>>
[2022] ZAECELLC 22
|
|
Q.P.Z (born T) v M.D.Z (EL1154/2022) [2022] ZAECELLC 22 (30 August 2022)
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
(EAST
LONDON CIRCUIT LOCAL DIVISON)
CASE NO: EL1154/2022
In the matter between:
Q[....]
P[....] Z[....] (born
T[....])
Applicant
and
M[....] D[....]
Z[....]
Respondent
JUDGMENT
LAING
J
[1]
This is an application brought in terms of rule
43.
[2]
The parties are married in community of property
and are the parents of two minor children (a boy and a girl), aged 16
and 13 respectively.
The applicant has instituted divorce
proceedings.
[3]
Both parties are employed. The applicant is
employed as an Acting Manager at the Amathole District Municipality,
the respondent
is employed as a Senior Manager at the East London
Industrial Development Zone. It is common cause that the parties are
or were
joint owners of three immovable properties, one having been
sold recently.
[4]
Each of the parties filed comprehensive
affidavits. By the time that the matter was heard, counsel had
succeeded in narrowing the
issues considerably.
[5]
In relation to the remaining issues, the
respondent denies that he uses alcohol excessively. There is no
indication, however, that
he contests the details of purchases made
from various liquor retailers and taverns, as apparent from the bank
statement that was
attached to the applicant’s affidavit. It is
necessary for the court, in the circumstances, to attach some
qualification
to the respondent’s right of access, as appears
in the order that follows.
[6]
Moreover, the court understands counsel for the
applicant to have accepted, during argument, reduced amounts payable
as maintenance
pendente lite
with regard to each of the children and the applicant herself. The
adjusted amounts are reflected in the order.
[7]
The respondent has already tendered payment of
the costs of extra lessons to the institution concerned and avers
that it is not
necessary to pay same directly to the applicant. The
applicant has indicated that the latter approach would be preferable
to ensure
that the costs are settled timeously, without issue. The
court agrees.
[8]
The applicant is satisfied that she will retain
the children as dependants in terms of her medical aid membership,
the costs of
which being subsidized by her employer. Nevertheless,
she has claimed payment from the respondent of all medical expenses
not covered,
including hers. It would be fair to limit the
respondent’s liability to expenses incurred only for the
children.
[9]
The respondent undertakes to continue making
payment of the instalments and insurance owing with regard to the
Toyota Fortuner (registered
as [....]), currently used by the
applicant, but only until the date of the divorce. It would be fair
for him to cover the reasonable
and necessary costs of licensing,
repairs, servicing and the replacement of tyres, especially when he
is the registered owner of
the motor vehicle.
[10]
The applicant has claimed a contribution towards
legal costs. The respondent has flatly refused same, arguing that the
applicant’s
existing employment and her receipt of the proceeds
of the sale of the immovable property situated at 5 Southend Avenue
would be
sufficient to cover such expenses. It would be fair simply
to divide the difference equally.
[11]
Despite the applicant’s having initially
claimed the costs of the application itself, she argued that costs be
made in the
cause. The court sees no reason why this should be
otherwise.
[12]
Consequently, the court makes the following
order:
(a)
The applicant is appointed as primary carer of
the minor children, subject to the respondent’s reasonable
exercise of his
right to contact with them; provided, however, that
he is not under the influence of any intoxicating substance at the
time;
(b)
The respondent is ordered to effect payment of
maintenance
pendente lite
to the applicant in the amount of R4,250 per month, per child;
(c)
The respondent is ordered to effect payment of
maintenance
pendente lite
to the applicant in the amount of R5,000 per month, to be deposited
directly into the applicant’s bank account on or before
the
last day of each and every month;
(d)
The respondent is ordered to effect payment of
the children’s school fees on a monthly basis, payable directly
to the school;
(e)
The respondent is ordered to effect payment of
the outstanding school fees, payable for the children with regard to
the 2022 school
year, from his share of the proceeds of the sale of
the immovable property situated at 5 Southend Avenue, Gonubie, East
London;
(f)
The respondent is ordered to effect payment of
the children’s school-related expenses, including but not
limited to their
school uniforms, stationery, textbooks, registration
fees, and all costs associated with their participation in extramural
activities,
including but not limited to fees, tours, clothing, and
equipment;
(g)
The respondent is ordered to effect payment of
the children’s extra lessons in the amount of R2,095 per month,
to be deposited
directly into the applicant’s bank account on
or before the last day of each and every month;
(h)
The respondent is ordered to effect payment of
such of the children’s medical expenses as are not covered by
the applicant’s
medical aid;
(i)
The respondent is ordered to continue to effect
payment of the following household expenses on a monthly basis:
(a)
the bond repayments in respect of the immovable
properties situated at [....] Hudson Avenue, Vincent, East London,
and [....] Main
Road, Gonubie, East London, respectively;
(b)
homeowner’s insurance;
(c)
household contents insurance;
(d)
municipal rates and services in respect of the
above immovable properties;
(e)
monthly instalments payable in respect of the
applicant’s Toyota Fortuner motor vehicle (registered as
[....]);
(f)
insurance for the above motor vehicle;
(g)
all reasonable and necessary costs associated
with licensing, repairs, servicing, and the replacement of tyres, for
the above motor
vehicle;
(j)
The respondent is ordered to effect payment of a
contribution towards the applicant’s legal costs in the amount
of R10,000;
and
(k)
The costs of the application are ordered to be
costs in the cause.
JGA
LAING
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT
APPEARANCE
Counsel for the
applicant:
Adv Wood, instructed
by Difford Underwood Inc., East London.
Counsel
for the respondent:
Adv Molony, instructed by Coutts Fraser
& Associates, East
London.
Date
of hearing:
23 August 2022
Date
of delivery of judgment:
30 August 2022