Gauteng High Court (Johannesburg) Judge Stuart Wilson has granted an appeal to a divorcee seeking reinstatement of R30 000 spousal support and backpay from her former spouse.

A News24 report says the appellant, referred to as LDB in court papers, was divorced from the respondent, referred to as JSB, in January 2014.

JSB agreed he would pay R30 000 monthly in spousal support to LDB from the day she left their marital home. This agreement was meant to last until LDB died, remarried or cohabited with anyone other than her mother. JSB also agreed that they would maintain LDB's vehicle and repair costs not covered by an insurer.

However, in April 2020, JSB stopped paying the monthly spousal support and in June that year approached the Randburg Magistrate's Court for permission to stop making the monthly payments altogether.

The magistrate granted the order.

In his ruling, Wilson criticises the lower court's handling of the case as if it was an ordinary civil claim, contrary to the provisions of the Maintenance Act. 

According to the News24 report, the magistrate's reasons for ruling in favour of JSB were that his earning capacity decreased ‘tremendously’ during the Covid-19 pandemic, that JSB was reliant on his savings to meet their expenses and that both parties appeared to have been in a similar financial position. 

‘An examination of the record reveals that none of the magistrate's factual findings has any reliable foundation in it,’ said Wilson.

He added that the magistrate did not consider the settlement agreement that ended the parties' marriage when she made her decision.

He added: ‘The magistrate, quite wrongly, approached the matter on the basis that the parties' relative means could be considered afresh in a vacuum, and that there was no burden on JSB to justify the nature and extent of any departure from the agreement.’

He said on a proper analysis of the evidence before the magistrate, there was no justification for her to permit JSB to end their monthly spousal support of LDB.

Another factor raised by Wilson in the matter was a maintenance officer involved with the case did not conduct a proper investigation, in line with the Maintenance Act, after JSB's complaint in June 2020.

‘As far as I can see, there was no maintenance investigation, no attempt to identify and narrow the real issues between the parties and no attempt to compile a reliable set of financial information against which JSB's complaint could be considered,’ said Wilson.

The court also set aside the Magistrate's Court's decision to suspend the spousal support altogether and specified that only payments for April 2020 until September 2020 could be suspended.

The matter will now revert to the lower court where the issue of backpay is to be addressed.

Full News24 report

Judgment