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, PRETORIA)
Case No: 7612/2019
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED:
DATE 10 OCTOBER 2025
SIGNATURE
In the matter between:
P[...] T[...] K[...] Applicant
and
S[...] B[...] K[...] Respondent
IN RE:
S[...] B[...] K[...] Plaintiff
and
P[...] T[...] K[...] Defendant
This judgment is prepared and authored by the Judge whose name is reflected as
such and is handed down electronically by circulation to the parties / their legal
representatives by email and by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on
CaseLines. The date for handing down is deemed to be October 2025.
JUDGMENT
RETIEF J
[1] The Applicant brings an application for leave to appeal to the Full Bench of
this Division against part of the judgment handed down by this Court on the 5 of
September 2025.
[2] This Court accepts that reference to the Full Bench is yet again another
oversight by the Applicant’s legal team as leave should be requested to a Full
Court of this Division and not a Full Bench.
[3] Furthermore, it is trite that one appeals the order and not the judgment. The
Applicant does not request leave to appeal the order of this Court handed down on
the 5 September 2025.
[4] Notwithstanding the above, t he Applicant centres his grounds in support of
the application to seek leave against the judgment, directing such grounds to the
exercise of the Court’s discretion in the finding of his substantial misconduct in
support of the Respondent’s successful partial forfeiture claim in terms of section
9(1) of the Divorce Act. This the Applicant does notwithstanding his admission of
the forfeiture claim and grounds on the pleadings.
[5] Be that as it may, this Court has reconsidered its reasoned judgment and
the cumulative effect of all the factors it took into account in the exercise of its
discretion and finds that the Applicant has not only failed, to fully engage with the
threshold of Section 17(1)(a)(i) or (ii) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013
[Section 17 of the Act] but is of the opinion that the Applicant has failed to meet the
threshold of section 17 of the Act.
[6] The Applicant furthermore stated in his notice that “ TAKE FURTHER
NOTICE THAT, the Applicant reserves his right to supplement his findings (own
emphasis) appealed against and the grounds of appeal ”. The origin of this right
and on what findings the Applicant made remain unclear. His Counsel failed to
deal with it in argument. In consequence no right nor basis to supplement exists.
[7] In consequence the application must fail.
[8] As to costs, there is no reason why costs should not follow the result. The
Court is not inclined to grant a punitive cost order as sought and argued by the
Respondent’s attorney.
[9] The following order:
1. Application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs, Counsels fees
to be taxed on scale B.
L.A. RETIEF
Judge of the High Court
Gauteng Division
Appearances:
For the Applicant: Adv F Kabini
Instructed by attorneys: Mogajane Attorneys
Tel: (012) 751 8551
For the Respondent: Mr. T Mudenda
Cell: 083 501 5052
Date of hearing: 9 October 2025
Date of judgment: 10 October 2025