About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
>>
2021
>>
[2021] ZAKZPHC 71
|
|
Volker v Volker and Another (AR155/2020) [2021] ZAKZPHC 71 (3 March 2021)
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
KWAZULU-NATAL
DIVISION, PIETERMARITZBURG
Not
Reportable
Case
no: AR155/2020
In
the matter between:
THOMAS
WILHELM
VOLKER APPELLANT
and
RENATA
MIGNON
VOLKER FIRST
RESPONDENT
OLD
MUTUAL INVESTMENT SERVICES SECOND
RESPONDENT
Coram: KOEN
J et MOSSOP AJ
Date
of set down
:
26 February 2021
Date
delivered:
3 March 2021
This
judgment will be handed down in open court and delivered
electronically by circulation to the parties’ legal
representatives
by email publication. The date and time for hand-down
is deemed to be 09h30 on 3 March 2021.
ORDER
On
appeal from:
The Maintenance Court, Paulpietersburg.
(a) Condonation
for the late delivery of the appeal is granted.
(b) Subject
to what is set out below, the appeal is dismissed and each party is
directed to pay his/her
and its own costs.
(c) The
order of the maintenance court is set aside and substituted with the
following:
‘
(i)
The Old Mutual Life Assurance Company South Africa Limited is joined
as the third respondent to the maintenance
proceedings.
(ii)
The second respondent is ordered to pay to the applicant the sum of
R172 810,03 on 18 June 2020 and
R99 204,97 on 18 June 2021
in respect of arrear capital maintenance payments due by the first
respondent to the applicant.’
JUDGMENT
Koen
J et Mossop AJ
[1] This
is an appeal against an order of the Maintenance Court for the
district of Paulpietersburg (the maintenance
court), which granted an
order directing the second respondent, Old Mutual Investment Services
(Old Mutual), to make various payments
to Renata Mignon Volker (Mrs.
Volker) in respect of maintenance owing to her by her former spouse,
Thomas Wilhelm Volker (Mr. Volker).
[2] Mr.
and Mrs. Volker were divorced in terms of an order of the High Court
dated 4 November 2013, which granted
the following relief:
‘
1
The bonds of marriage subsisting between Plaintiff
[1]
and Defendant be and are hereby dissolved;
2.
An Order adjourning to dates to be arranged all other issues,
including:
2.1 the
Defendant’s claim for maintenance;
2.2 the
determination of the division of the joint estate; and
2.3 all
questions of costs.
3.
It is recorded that it has been agreed that the assets and
liabilities of the Thomas and Mignon Volker
Family Trust numbers 1, 2
and 3, the Montague Property Trust numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,
10, 11 and 12 and the Penvaan Property
Trust shall be deemed to be
assets and liabilities in the joint estate of the Plaintiff and the
Defendant.
4.
It is recorded that it is presently not possible to determine the
value and extent of the assets and
liabilities of the joint estate
and the Trusts as aforesaid, and such will be capable of
determination only as at the date of determination
of the division in
accordance with paragraph 2.2 hereinbefore.
5.
It is recorded that the provisions of Rule 43 shall remain applicable
to the Plaintiff and the Defendant,
after the date of this Order,
pending the determination of the issues in terms of paragraph 2
hereof.
6.
The costs of the application for an adjournment are reserved.’
[3] On
3 September 2014 an order was granted pursuant to the provisions of
rule 43 of the Uniform Rules of Court
(the high court order) which
directed that:
‘
The Respondent
[2]
is to pay to the Applicant, a gross amount of R20 000 (twenty
thousand rand) per month, pendente lite, with the [sic] effect from
the 1
st
of October 2014.’
[4]
It
is not in dispute that Mr. Volker did not comply with the high court
order. Accordingly, on 24 April 2018, Mrs. Volker applied
for, and
obtained, a warrant of attachment pursuant to the provisions of
sections 26 and 30 of the Maintenance Act
[3]
(the Act) for arrear maintenance and executed on that order, which
resulted in an amount of R856 932,92 being realized during
November 2018. Mr. Volker, however, thereafter again defaulted in his
maintenance payments, which resulted in a further similar
application
in terms of the Act being issued on 12 July 2019, in which Mrs.
Volker claimed the following relief against Mr. Volker
and Old
Mutual:
‘
1.
The matter be heard as one of urgency and that the above Honourable
Court dispense with the normal forms
and service.
2.
A rule nisi be granted calling upon the respondent to show cause, if
any, why an order in the terms as
set out hereafter, should not be
granted:
· The
second respondent be ordered to retain the first respondent’s
full benefit in terms of an Old Mutual Wealth Linked Retirement
Income Policy with policy number 1842 2939 (in the name of the first
respondent) to which the applicant is entitled to R615 077.16 (R278
750.00 arrears maintenance together with R336 327.16 interest)
in terms of the maintenance order read with the provisions of section
26 and 30 of the Maintenance Act, Act 99 of 98.
· The
second respondent be ordered to pay the aforementioned amount in
favour
of the applicant, Renata Mignon Volker into below mentioned
account
Bank Name: Standard Bank
Account Number […]
Branch Code: […]
Account Holder: Mills
Fitchett Sec 32
1 Act 112
Reference Number: […].
· That
pending the finalisation of the matter in the Maintenance Court, the
second respondent is interdicted from paying any benefit to the first
respondent.
· The
applicant be granted such further and/or alternative relief as to
this Honourable
Court seems fit.’
[5] The
provisions of section 26 of the Act referred to above and material to
this appeal provide:
‘
(1)
Whenever any person –
(a)
against
whom any maintenance order has been made has failed to make any
particular payment in accordance with that maintenance order;
or
(b)
. . .
such order shall be
enforceable in respect of any amount which that person has so failed
to pay, together with any interest thereon—
(i)
by execution against property as contemplated in section 27;
(ii) by
the attachment of emoluments as contemplated in section 28; or
(iii)
by the attachment of any debt as contemplated in section 30.
(2) . .
.
(2A) . . .
(3) . . .
(4)
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, any
pension, annuity, gratuity or compassionate
allowance or other
similar benefit shall be liable to be attached or subjected to
execution under any warrant of execution or any
order issued or made
under this Chapter in order to satisfy a maintenance order.’
[6] The
provisions of section
30 of the Act material to
this appeal provide:
‘
(1)
A maintenance court may –
(a) on the
application of a person referred to in section 26(2)
(a)
;
or
(b) when
such court suspends the warrant of execution under section 27(4)
(b)
,
make an order for the attachment of any debt at present or in future
owing or accruing to the person against whom the maintenance
or other
order in question was made to the amount necessary to cover the
amount which the latter person has failed to pay, together
with any
interest thereon, as well as the costs of the attachment or
execution, which order shall direct the person who has incurred
the
obligation to pay the debt to make such payment as may be specified
in that order within the time and in the manner so specified.
(2) . .
.
(3) An
order made under subsection (1) may be enforced as if it were a civil
judgment of the court.’
[7] On
21 February 2020, the maintenance court granted the following order:
‘
The second
respondent is ordered to pay the applicant the amount of R172, 810.03
on the 18
th
June 2020, R172,810.03 on the 18
th
June 2021, R172, 810.03 on the 18
th
June 2022, and R56
124,92 on the 18
th
June 2023. To be paid in the name of
the applicant Renata Mignon Volker Bank Name: Standard Bank, Amount
[sic] Number […]
Branch Code: […].
The first respondent is
ordered not to reduce the percentage of the annual benefit it must
remain at 17.5%.
The first respondent is
further ordered not to vary the date of receiving annual benefit
until the maintenance debt is paid in full.
The application of costs
by the second respondent is dismissed.’
The
total of the payments provided for in terms of the order accordingly
amount to R574 555,01.
[8] It
is this order which forms the subject of this appeal. Only Mr. Volker
has filed heads of argument. Mrs.
Volker has filed a notice stating
that she abides by the decision of this court. Although she has
declared that she does not oppose
the appeal, her notice to abide
with annexures comprises some six pages in which she sets out and
refers to various submissions
which she wishes to bring to this
court’s attention, and which effectively amounts to an argument
in opposition.
[9] It
was not in dispute before the maintenance court that Mr. Volker was
required to pay maintenance of R20 000
per month in terms of the
high court order and that he was in arrears with his maintenance
payments in the sum of R272 015
(Mrs. Volker alleged in her
founding affidavit that the arrear maintenance amounted to R278 750).
What was in dispute before
the maintenance court, or has been
questioned, and is in dispute before this court, and requires
consideration in this judgment,
are the following:
(a) whether
condonation for the late delivery of the appeal should be granted;
(b) whether
the high court order qualifies as a ‘
maintenance order
’
for the purposes of the Act;
(c) whether
the quantum of Mr. Volker’s unpaid arrear maintenance, and
interest thereon, had been proved;
(d) whether
the annuity held by Mr. Volker with Old Mutual could be attached by
requiring Old Mutual
to pay the amounts which may become payable to
Mr. Volker to Mrs. Volker;
(e) whether
there is a fatal non-joinder of Old Mutual Life Assurance Company SA
Limited; and
(f) whether
it was competent for the maintenance court to have directed that Mr.
Volker could be ordered
not to reduce the annuity income he receives
from the annuity, and when he receives it. This was not part of the
relief claimed
in the application. These issues will be considered
seriatim
.
Condonation
[10] The
application initially served before the magistrate on 11 December
2019 and was adjourned to 21 February
2020 for judgment. On that day
the court experienced load shedding and the matter could not proceed.
It was, however, agreed that
the magistrate would produce a written
judgment which she would hand down by emailing it to the parties’
legal representatives.
On 23 March 2020, the Mr. Volker’s
attorney inquired from Old Mutual’s attorney whether he had
received the judgment,
to be told that he had not. After making
further inquiries with the magistrate, Mr. Volker’s attorney
ascertained that the
judgment had been emailed to the parties’
attorneys on 24 February 2020, but for some unexplained reason was
not received
by him or Old Mutual’s attorney. At the request of
Mr. Volker’s attorney, the judgment was resent by the
magistrate
and received by him on 26 March 2020. The next day, the
country went into a hard lockdown arising out of the COVID-19
pandemic.
[11] Due
to the consequences of the lock down, the notice of appeal was filed
on 13 May 2020, when it ought to
have been filed by 28 April 2020.
[12] We
are satisfied that the explanation provided is reasonable, the delay
has not been inordinate, nor has it
been dilatory in nature, and no
prejudice has been occasioned thereby. Condonation is accordingly
granted.
Is
a rule 43 maintenance order a maintenance order as contemplated by
the Act
[13] Section
1 of the Act defines ‘maintenance order’ as:
‘
any order for the
payment, including the periodical payment, of sums of money towards
the maintenance of any person issued by any
court in the Republic,
and includes, except for the purposes of section 31, any sentence
suspended on condition that the convicted
person make payments of
sums of money towards the maintenance of any other person.’
[14] The
definition must be given a purposive interpretation. There is no
reason why giving these words their ordinary
meaning in the context
in and for the purpose for which they are applied, that a maintenance
order
pendente lite
pursuant to the provisions of a rule 43
order should not qualify as a maintenance order for the purposes of
the Act. The suggestion
that a rule 43 order would not be included in
the definition is not supported by any authority and has no
substance. The point
was not persisted with in argument.
Whether
the amount of the arrears, inclusive of interest, was established.
[15] The
evidence adduced by Mrs. Volker in this regard was unsatisfactory.
Initially, the quantum of her claim,
inclusive of interest, in the
amount of R515 077,16 was sought to be established with
reference to a schedule, being annexure
‘MV4’ to the
founding affidavit. With regard thereto, Mr. Volker referred to
certain payments that had been made by
him but which were not
reflected in that annexure. Mrs. Volker admitted these additional
payments but did not reflect all of them
in a subsequent schedule,
being annexure ‘RMV5’ to her replying affidavit to Mr.
Volker’s answering affidavit.
The rate at which interest was
calculated on the arrears and the calculation of such interest was
also disputed by Mr. Volker.
It was furthermore contended by Mr.
Volker that the interest claimed exceeded the capital amount and
contravened the
in duplum
rule.
[16] Once
all the papers had been filed, the quantum of the claim was sought to
be established with reference to
a revised version of the original
schedule, annexed as annexure ‘RMV12’ to Mrs. Volker’s
replying affidavit to
Old Mutual’s answering affidavit,
reflecting a claim in respect of arrear maintenance, together with
interest, in the sum
of R574 555,01. This was the total amount for
which the attachments and payments were authorised. It is however
trite law that
an applicant is required to make out her case in the
founding affidavit, and not in the replying affidavit. The reason is
obvious,
namely that the respondent must have the opportunity to
respond to the calculation of the claim in the answering affidavit.
[17] It
is not disputed that Mr. Volker had fallen into arrears with the
capital maintenance payments due by him.
This was candidly admitted
by Mr. Volker’s attorney at the outset of the hearing, when he
advised the magistrate that there
was an amount in arrears and,
later, that the amount of such arrears was R272 015. There is
accordingly no difficulty with
attachments up to that amount from
future annuity income that may become due to Mr. Volker from Old
Mutual. It was also not in
dispute that the annuity income that would
become due to Mr. Volker on 18 June 2020 and 18 June 2021
[4]
would be in the amount of R172 810,03. An order that R172 810,03
of the capital arrears in the sum of R272 015, payable
on 18 June
2020 and the balance of R99 204,97 (R272 015,00 less
R172 810,03), when the next annuity income payment
would accrue
on 18 June 2021, would be unassailable.
[18] The
difficulty arises in respect of the payment of interest on the arrear
capital payments. The calculation
of Mrs. Volker’s claim for
interest was difficult to follow.
[19] It
is clear from the provisions of section 30(1) of the Act that the
debt that may be attached may be the
amount ‘necessary to cover
the amount which (the person against whom the maintenance or other
order in question was made),
together
with any interest thereon
,
as well as the costs of the attachment or execution.’ The
provisions of the Prescribed Rate of Interest Act
[5]
material to this appeal provide:
‘
1.
Rate at which interest on debt is calculated in certain
circumstances.
– (1) If a debt bears interest and the rate
at which the interest is to be calculated is not governed by any
other law or
by an agreement or a trade custom or in any other
manner, such interest shall be calculated at the rate contemplated in
subsection
(2)
(a)
as at the time when such interest begins to
run, unless a court of law, on the ground of special circumstances
relating to that
debt, orders otherwise.
(2)
(a)
For the
purposes of subsection (1), the rate of interest is the repurchase
rate as determined from time to time by the South African
Reserve
Bank, plus 3,5 percent per annum.
(b)
The Cabinet member responsible for the administration of justice
must, whenever the repurchase rate is adjusted by
the South African
Reserve Bank, publish the amended rate of interest contemplated in
paragraph (a) by notice in the Gazette.
(c)
. . . ‘
2.
Interest on a judgement debt
. –
(1) Every judgment debt
which, but for the provisions of this subsection, would not bear any
interest after the date of the judgment
or order by virtue of which
it is due, shall bear interest from the day on which such judgment
debt is payable, unless that judgment
or order provides otherwise.
(2) Any
interest payable in terms of subsection (1) may be recovered as if it
formed part of the judgment debt on which
it is due.
(3) In this
section “judgment debt” means a sum of money due in terms
of a judgment or an order, including
an order as to costs, of a court
of law, and includes any part of such a sum of money, but does not
include any interest not forming
part of the principal sum of a
judgment debt.’
[20] Unfortunately,
the schedules attached to Mrs. Volker’s papers did not specify
the interest rate at which
interest was to be calculated from time to
time, otherwise the calculation might have been possible independent
of the schedules
submitted. Instead, a single rate of interest was
applied to each schedule, being either 15,5% or 9%. But more
significantly, apart
also from the admitted payments not all being
taken into account, a major difficulty with regard to the calculation
of interest
arose from the fact that the substantial credit of
R856 932,92 in November 2018 was all applied to capital and not,
in accordance
with common law principles, firstly to interest and
only thereafter to capital. Interest was also not confined to a
calculation
of interest on the admitted unpaid arear capital of
R272 015,00, which accumulated over the period from May 2018 to
June 2019,
but, if regard is had to annexure ‘RMV12’, was
seemingly calculated over a period which dates back for five years.
Furthermore, in the first two schedules interest had been calculated
at 15,5% per annum whereas in the last schedule the interest
was
apparently calculated on unpaid capital maintenance payments at 9%
per annum. This was sought to be justified by Mrs. Volker
with
reliance on the judgment in
Davehill
(Pty) Ltd and others v Community Development Board
.
[6]
But that judgement is only authority for the view that if interest
runs from a particular date in respect of a particular judgement
debt
because it is due, then that interest rate will continue to prevail
notwithstanding subsequent fluctuations in the interest
rate. In
respect of unpaid arrear maintenance payments, the debt falls due in
respect of each and every monthly maintenance payment
when not
honoured, and the interest to be calculated on each unpaid capital
amount, or any unpaid portion thereof, would be the
rate prevailing
as at that date. Subsequent arrears falling due on dates by when the
interest rate had changed, would only attract
interest at the
interest rate then prevailing. One rate does not apply to the whole
period.
[21] A
perusal of any of the schedules also indicates that on Mrs. Volker’s
calculation, from November 2018,
and for some period thereafter, the
total interest exceeded the capital amount of the arrears
outstanding, which would suggest
that the
in duplum
rule was
contravened.
[22] We
are very alive to the sensitivity with which courts approach claims
for unpaid maintenance and that a court
should endeavour always, if
possible, to ensure that unpaid maintenance claims and interest are
corrected. A substantial sum in
interest might be due to Mrs. Volker.
It is, however, impossible to determine with any reasonable degree of
accuracy, what that
figure should be. Mrs. Volker has failed to
establish the claim for interest for which any attachment may be
ordered. The appeal
accordingly must succeed to correct the amount
outstanding for which an attachment could validly be effected.
The
attachment of annuity income
[23] The
interest of Old Mutual in the litigation was piqued by Mrs. Volker’s
claim to attach the full amount
of Mr. Volker’s annuity. Old
Mutual contends that such an order is not competent. It contends that
the capital amount of
a purchased living annuity vests in the entity
which provides the annuity, Old Mutual Life Assurance Company South
Africa Limited,
with the annuitant only being entitled to the annuity
income which may become available periodically, whether that be
monthly or
annually and at the percentage rate
[7]
chosen by the annuitant. That argument was advanced by Mr. Volker
both before the maintenance court and also before this court.
The
factual allegations of Mr Volker and Old Mutual in regard to the
nature of an annuity and the capital and income components
thereto,
stand unchallenged.
[24] Mrs.
Volker has sought to counter this argument on the basis:
(a) that
it is inconsistent with the provisions of section 26(4) of the Act;
(b) that
the capital amount of a pension payable, would be liable to
attachment (as in fact happened
with the previous attachment), and
that Mr. Volker, spurred on by that successful attachment of pension
fund monies, had deliberately
converted the remaining capital amounts
after a portion of each policy was paid to him in cash, which accrued
under policies 6067185,
8430423, 119281193, 14870562 and 16819853 to
purchase the annuity under policy number 18422939, to place the
capital of that policy
beyond the reach of an attachment by Mrs.
Volker.
[25] It
seems implied from the judgment of the learned magistrate that she
accepted the argument, correctly it
would seem, that only the annuity
income which becomes payable periodically could be attached as the
capital amount would vest
in Old Mutual,
[8]
as she confined her judgment to payment by Old Mutual of the amount
of the annuity income, which it was common cause at an interest
rate
of 17,5% amounts to R172 810,03 annually and which is payable on
18 June 2020 and 2021, and no more. None of the parties
dispute that
the income payable in terms of the annuity is capable of attachment.
There is no cross appeal by Mrs. Volker that
a larger amount than the
amount of the annuity income should have been ordered by the learned
magistrate to be payable to her.
Whether a larger amount, being the
capital amount of the annuity, could lawfully be attached is
accordingly not an issue in this
appeal and need not be considered
further.
[26] As
regards the argument in paragraph 24(b) above, the obvious answer
again is that there is no cross appeal
to lay claim to an amount
greater than that awarded. But that aside, it is not clear exactly
what relief Mrs. Volker would wish
to claim based on any such alleged
mala fides
on the part of Mr. Volker. It seems, in the absence
of her appearing before this court and advancing argument, that she
suggests
that Mr. Volker
mala fide
placed the capital amount
of his former pension benefits beyond attachment. There has, however,
been no specific relief claimed
in that regard, such as for example a
declaratory order in the high court setting aside those transactions,
or claiming some form
of anti-dissipatory relief. It also does not
appear that this issue was raised in the maintenance court. On the
allegations advanced
in the application papers, no cause of action
for any such relief was established.
Non-joinder
[27] As
a matter of strict law, there was a non-joinder of Old Mutual Life
Assurance Company South Africa Limited,
being the holder of the
capital amount of the annuity from which the annuity income is paid.
[28] The
uncontroverted allegations, however, established that the annuity is
administered by Old Mutual. In an
exchange of email correspondence
between the maintenance officer and the legal adviser of Old Mutual
the latter, on 5 July 2019,
stated that ‘Old Mutual Life
Assurance Company South Africa is not the administrator for Old
Mutual Wealth’. He advised
that ‘[t]he correct party to
be cited is Old Mutual Investment Services (“OMIS”)’,
that is the second respondent.
There is no doubt from the papers that
Old Mutual Life Assurance Company South Africa Limited is aware of
the litigation. Although
the capital amount of the annuity appears to
vest in it, the payment of the annuity interest is administered by
Old Mutual, as
cited, which will be the entity to give effect to any
order of attachment. In those circumstances, the failure previously
to join
Old Mutual Life Assurance Company South Africa Limited
formally is not a fatal non-joinder, and can be corrected now. The
order
to be issued will accordingly provide for such joinder to
formally regularise the position.
The
order not to reduce the percentage of the annual benefit
[29] The
magistrate ordered that Mr. Volker was not to reduce the percentage
of the annual benefit that he receives
from the living annuity below
the current level of 17,5 percent per annum. Such relief was,
however, not sought from the court
nor was a case for that relief set
up in Mrs. Volker’s founding affidavit.
[30] It
is for the parties in their affidavits to define the limits and
nature of their dispute. There may be instances
where the court may
mero
motu
raise a question of law that emerges fully from the evidence and is
necessary for the decision of the case. provided that no prejudice
will be caused to any party by its being decided. Beyond that, it is
for the parties to identify the dispute and for the court
to
determine that dispute and that dispute alone.
[9]
[31] That
portion of the magistrate’s order must accordingly be set
aside.
[32] What
is apparent from the wording of clause 3.12 of the annuity is that
Mr. Volker may only change his income
level, and frequency of the
annuity payment that he receives each year, on the anniversary date
of the policy. If Old Mutual does
not receive a request to change the
annuity income level before the anniversary date the income level and
frequency thereof will
remain unchanged. Accordingly, the rate at
which the annuity income is earned and the date of payment up until
18 June 2021 cannot
be varied by Mr. Volker.
Costs
[33] As
regards costs, Mr. Volker has been successful to a limited extent,
reducing the attachment to what was
admitted as the capital amount in
arrears. The participation by Old Mutual in this appeal was
unnecessary. The effect of the judgment
of the maintenance court did
not imperil its construction of the correct legal position which it
contends applies in respect of
an annuity. In the exercise of this
court’s discretion on costs, it seems appropriate that each
party, including Old Mutual,
be directed to pay their own costs.
The
order
[34] The
following order is granted:
(a) Condonation
for the late delivery of the appeal is granted.
(b) Subject
to what is set out below, the appeal is dismissed and each party is
directed to pay his/her and
its own costs.
(c) The
order of the maintenance court is set aside and substituted with the
following:
‘
(i)
The Old Mutual Life Assurance Company South Africa Limited is joined
as the third respondent to the maintenance
proceedings.
(ii)
The second respondent is ordered to pay to the applicant the sum of
R172 810,03 on 18 June 2020 and R99 204,97
on 18 June 2021 in respect
of arrear capital maintenance payments due by the first respondent to
the applicant.’
KOEN
J
MOSSOP
AJ
APPEARANCES
For
appellant: C.
Pretorius SC
Instructed
by: G.
Vonkemann Attorneys
c/o
Tatham Wilkes Inc.
200
Hoosen Haffejee Street
PIETERMARITZBURG
For
first respondent: No
appearance
For
second respondent: No
appearance
[1]
Mr.
Volker was the plaintiff in the divorce action.
[2]
Mr.
Volker was the respondent in the rule 43 proceedings.
[3]
Maintenance
Act 99 of 1998
.
[4]
According
to the annuity fund rules the interest rate at which annuity income
will become payable and the intervals at which they
will be paid,
may be varied by the annuitant annually. The interest rate at which
the annuity interest is payable and that it
would be payable
annually up to 18 June 2021, has not been varied.
[5]
Prescribed
Rate of Interest Act 55 of 1975
.
[6]
Davehill
(Pty) Ltd and others v Community Development Board
1988 (1) SA 290
(A).
[7]
The
rate can vary between 2.5 and 17.5%.
[8]
This
was argued with persuasive reliance on the judgment of the Supreme
Court of Appeal in
ST
v CT
[2018] ZASCA 73; 2018 (5) SA 479 (SCA) and
CM
v EM
[2020] ZASCA 48; 2020 (5) SA 49 (SCA).
[9]
Tau
v Mashaba and others
[2020]
ZASCA 26
;
2020 (5) SA 135
(SCA) para 19.