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: 34727/2022
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED.
(4) Date: 10 February 2026
SIGNATURE
In the matter between:
J[...] J[...] G[...] Applicant
(Identity Number: 7[...])
And
C[...] G[...] Respondent
2
(Identity Number: 7[...])
JUDGMENT
NYATHI J
A. Introduction
[1] This is an opposed Application in terms of Section 33(4) of the Uniform Rules
of Court in which the Applicant seeks a separation of issues in a pending
divorce action. More particularly, to separate the irretrievable breakdown of the
marriage and parental rights and responsibilities in respect of the children born
of the marriage from other issues in dispute between the parties to wit spousal
maintenance and the calculation of the accrual.
[2] The parties are ad ide m that the marriage relationship between them has
irretrievably broken down and they both want a divorce.
[3] The parties are furthermore in agreement that the primary care and residence
of their 12 -year-old son should be awarded to the Applicant and that the
Respondent should have reasonable contact with the minor child. This has
been the status quo since separation in March 2022.
[4] This is also in accordance with the Family Advocate’s recommendations
contained in a report dated 23 January 2023.
B. Background
3
[5] A brief background of the matter is that:
5.1 The parties were married to each other on 02 February 2002
out of community of property with the accrual system.
5.2 Two children were born of the marriage between the parties of
which the youngest child is still a minor, namely K . G[...] who
was born on 29 April 2013. The 18 year old child is a t
University and is a dependant.
5.3 The Respondent vacated the erstwhile matrimonial home
during or about March 2022.
5.4 The children have been in the Applicant's primary care since
separation.
5.5 The Respondent instituted divorce proceedings against the
Applicant on 22 June 2022.
C. Respondent’s opposition:
[6] The Respondent has set out her opposition to the application in her Opposing
Affidavit under the heading “CONCLUSION” in the following terms:
“…54. I submit that the application for separation of issues should not be granted
as it would prejudice me financially and enhance parental alienation;
55. The separation of issue does not accord with the clean break principle; and
56. I submit that my opposition to the separation of issues would not prejudice
the Applicant/Defendant.”
4
[7] It is worth noting that the Respondent has filed an application for joinder of 2
Trusts and a Trustee of both Trusts as well as a corporate entity. The
Respondent pursues this joinder application for the purpose of ascertaining the
true value of the accrual estate. The Applicant opposes the joinder application.
[8] The divorce could not proceed while the separation and the joinder applications
were still pending.1
D. The legal position on separation applications in divorce proceedings
[9] A court will allow for the separation of issues in a legal proceeding, as per Rule
33(4) of the Uniform Rules of Court, when it is satisfied that such separation
will lead to a more convenient, expeditious, and fair resolution of the case.
[10] The exercise of the court’s discretion under Rule 33(4) hinges on a n
assessment of 'convenience': i.e. whether the issues are sufficiently discrete to
permit separate adjudication without overlapping evidence. The court must be
satisfied that such a bifurcation will materially expedite the proceedings and will
not result in undue prejudice or procedural 'stultification' through fragmented
appeals.
[11] In matters involving minor and/or dependent children, as in this case, the court
is bound by the peremptory requirements of the Divorce Act2 to safeguard their
best interests before granting any relief. Ultimately, the separation must
facilitate the efficient administration of justice without undermining the integrity
of the adversarial process."
E. Discussion
1 Para 37 of Respondent’s Opposing Affidavit.
2 Section 6 of the Divorce Act 70 of 1979.
5
[12] Mr. Geoffreys made the following submissions on behalf of the Respondent: He
referred to the matter of M.V v E.V (20263/23) [2023] ZAWCHC 330 in which
the plainti ff applied for a separate decree of divorce, independent of other
pending matrimonial issues. The applicant, facing serious health challenges,
sought to expedite the divorce process, arguing that ongoing proceedings
exacerbated his condition. The respondent, however, opposed this on
grounds of abuse of process and lack of urgency, amongst others. The court
was unpersuaded and dismissed the application on the basis that the
separation as sought was not “convenient” to all parties (including the Court)
– this is the test for a separation of issues in terms of Rule 33(4) of the High
Court Rules. 3
[13] Mr. Geoffreys further referred the court to the matter of A.K v R.N
(D6036/2023) [2025] ZAKZDHC 15 (30 April 2025), wherein the husband
(applicant) sought to separate the decree of divorce from the proprietary
consequences of the marriage under Uniform Rule 33(4). The applicant
expressed a desire to “get on with his life” as he had commenced a new
relationship, while the parties’ divorce action remained pending. The
respondent (wife) opposed this application on several grounds, including her
primary contention that the marriage had not irretrievably broken down and
could potentially be saved “by way of counselling or negotiations.” 4 The court
in this instance too, was unmoved and dismissed the separation application.
[14] It was submitted that the Applicant has as of February 2025, ceased to pay
spousal maintenance including the Respondent’s cell phone account etc. This
3 “Wait for your turn! – Separation of Issues in Divorce Matters | Rule 33(4) is not a tool for queue -jumping.” – Article
by Vermeulen Attorneys referred to by the writer with approval.
4 See discussion article: “Shackled or Separated? High Court Dismisses Rule 33(4) Application in A.K v R.N
(D6036/2023) [2025] ZAKZDHC 15 (30 April 2025)” – by Bertus Preller.
6
gave rise to a dispute with regards to the maintenance for the children as well
as their transportation costs to and from the Plaintiff/Respondent.5
[15] In further amplification thereto, there is a dispute with regards to rehabilitati ve
maintenance and the calculation of the accrual, which matter has not been
determined to be separated.6
F. Conclusion
[16] Separation is contingent on proving that the issues are not inextricably linked
and that a separate hearing is 'convenient' for both the court and the parties.
This has not been shown by the Applicant.
[17] The k ey considerations weighing on the court in considering a separation
application pending a divorce are:
5 Para 31 Respondent’s Opposing Affidavit.
6 Para 32 of Respondent’s Opposing Affidavit quoted verbatim.
7
17.1 Efficiency: Will a separation materially shorten the trial
duration? The answer here is obviously no. the contrary may
likely unfold.
17.2 Prejudice: Does it unfairly disadvantage a party or risk
conflicting factual findings? With the present dispute pertaining
to maintenance , a separation order will lead to an early
divorce, with the Respondent now losing the option of a Rule
43 interim relief.
17.3 Children’s Welfare: Does the separation satisfy the court's duty
to protect minor children? It seems not.
17.4 Finality: What is the risk of an interlocutory appeal prolonging
the litigation?" A separation order would not guarantee finality.
[18] The Applicant has not discharged t he convenience test which is the primary
test for separation under Rule 33(4) . The order may well be to Applicant’s
convenience, but not that of the Respondent and the Court.
[19] As far as costs are concerned, the standard rule obtains, the successful litigant
is entitled to be recompensed for legal costs incurred.
[20] Accordingly, the following order is made:
The application is dismissed, The Applicant is ordered to pay the Respondent’s
party-and-party costs at Scale C in accordance with Uniform Rule 67A.
____________________
8
J.S. NYATHI
Judge of the High Court
Gauteng Division, Pretoria
Date of hearing: 09 June 2025
Date of Judgment: 10 February 2026
On behalf of the Applicant: Mr. M. Haskins SC
Applicant’s attorneys: DDKK Attorneys Inc. C/O Van Der Merwe Du Toit Inc., Pretoria
On behalf of the Respondent: Mr. T.C. Geoffreys (Attorney with right of appearance).
Respondent’s attorneys: Colin Geoffreys Inc.
Delivery: This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties' legal
representatives by email and uploaded on the CaseLines electronic platform. The date for hand -
down is deemed to be 10 February 2026.