09/03/2026 Bertus Preller Alimony, Cohabitation, Cohabitation, Cohabitation trends, Interim Maintenance, Interim Maintenance Cohabitation, Life Partnerships, Maintenance, Rule 43 orders, Unmarried Maintenance ancillary jurisdiction peregrinus, balance of convenience maintenance, Bwanya Constitutional Court, cohabitation legal rights South Africa, cohabitation maintenance South Africa, common law development life partnership, Da Silva Salie J, duty of support life partners, EW v VH minority judgment, family law South Africa 2026, interim maintenance, interim relief life partnership, irreparable harm life partner, life partner financial protection, life partnership maintenance South Africa, P.A.L v R.J.T, permanent life partnership, permanent opposite-sex life partnership, prima facie right maintenance, Rule 43 unmarried partners, Rule 6(5)(d)(iii) answering affidavit, section 10 dignity, section 39(2) Constitution, section 9 equality, unmarried life partner, Volks v Robinson life partnership, Western Cape High Court family law, Wille J minority judgment, ZAWCHC 99 2026 Breaking New Ground: South Africa’s First Interim Maintenance Award to an Unmarried Life Partner — P.A.L v R.J.T (17492/2023) [2026] ZAWCHC 99 (4 March 2026). The Facts: An Unmarried Partner Seeks Interim Maintenance P.A.L v R.J.T (17492/2023) ZAWCHC 99 (4 March 2026) came before Da Silva Salie J in the Western Cape Division of the… READ MORE
06/03/2026 Bertus Preller Alimony, Best Interests of the Child, Children, Divorce, Duty to court, Duty to maintain, Financial non-disclosure, Interim Maintenance, Maintenance, Non-disclosure consequences, Rule 43, Rule 43 Applications, Rule 43 orders, Spousal Maintenance, Trusts, Trusts, Variation Rule 43(6) Pleading Poverty While Plundering the Pot: The Courts Draw a Hard Line on Rule 43(6) Abuse — C V S v S V S (18688/2022) [2026] ZAWCHC 30 (16 February 2026). The Facts: A Pattern of Non-Disclosure and Deliberate Financial Engineering In C V S v S V S (18688/2022) ZAWCHC 30 (16 February 2026), Holderness J was confronted with what… READ MORE
01/03/2026 Bertus Preller Appeal, Arrear maintenance claims, Arrear Maintenance Variation, Child Maintenance, Children, Contempt of court maintenance, Duty to maintain, Maintenance, Maintenance Act 99 of 1998, Maintenance Calculator, Maintenance Calculator, Maintenance Court, Maintenance Court, Maintenance order enforcement, Noting a maintenance appeal, Regulation 15 maintenance appeal, Section 15 Maintenance Act, Section 25 maintenance appeal, Technology in Law appellate interference maintenance, calendar days versus court days, Cape Town maintenance court, child maintenance South Africa, CPI escalation maintenance, Douglas v Douglas, duty to maintain children, education price index, household expense apportionment, Interpretation Act 33 of 1957, Magistrates' Court Rules, Maintenance Act 99 of 1998, maintenance appeal, maintenance appeal time limits, maintenance court, maintenance enquiry, maintenance formula, Maintenance Order, medical costs maintenance order, Mentz v Simpson, noting a maintenance appeal, pro rata maintenance calculation, reasonable maintenance expenses, Regulation 15 maintenance appeal, school fees maintenance, section 15 Maintenance Act, section 25 maintenance appeal, unrepresented litigant maintenance, Western Cape High Court Maintenance Appeals Unpacked: Timing, Calculations and the Separation of Costs — T.M-S v I.N (Appeal) (A31/2025) [2026] ZAWCHC 72 (19 February 2026). The Facts: A Maintenance Enquiry Gone Awry The matter of T.M-S v I.N (Appeal) (A31/2025) ZAWCHC 72 (19 February 2026) came before Pangarker J and Davis AJ in the Western… READ MORE
04/02/2026 Bertus Preller Alimony, Costs, Family Advocate, Interim Maintenance, Maintenance, Mediation, Non-disclosure consequences, Pendente Lite, Rule 43, Rule 43 Applications, Rule 43 orders, Spousal Maintenance, Uberrimae fidei matrimonial proceedings, Uniform Form Rules of Court adverse costs orders family law, clean hands doctrine, contribution to legal costs, contribution towards costs requirements, custody and contact disputes, Du Preez v Du Preez, duty of disclosure in divorce, duty of support spouses, equitable relief divorce, false affidavits maintenance, Family Advocate role, family law dishonesty, financial disclosure matrimonial proceedings, interim maintenance South Africa, maintenance court jurisdiction, matrimonial property disputes, Mediation in Certain Divorce Matters Act, non-disclosure consequences, Office of Family Advocate, perjury in divorce proceedings, prima facie case legal costs, Rule 43 applications, Rule 43 costs orders, Rule 43(5) discretion, South African divorce law, spousal maintenance pendente lite, uberrimae fidei matrimonial proceedings, Uniform Rules of Court Rule 43, Van Rippen v Van Rippen When Clean Hands Matter: The Fatal Cost of Non-Disclosure in Rule 43 Applications – S.J. J v M.M. J (2025/056214) [2026] ZAGPJHC 57 (2 February 2026). Factual Matrix: A Rule 43 Application Gone Wrong The parties married on 13 October 2012 in Johannesburg, out of community of property with the accrual system. Two minor children were… READ MORE
27/01/2026 Bertus Preller Adultery, Divorce, Exceptional circumstances separation, In Community of Property, Infidelity, Liquidator, Liquidator, Receiver Divorce, Separation Applications, Separation of issues, Trusts, Trusts accrual system, conceptual separability, convenience test, De Wet NO v Jurgens, divorce litigation, divorce proceedings, divorce South Africa, Estate Sayle, family law South Africa, Gillespie v Gillespie, interim maintenance, joint estate division, marriage in community of property, matrimonial property law, Matrimonial Property Regime, NK v KM, receiver and liquidator, separation of issues, strike date, T.S.Y v L.E.Y, TD v LD, trust assets joint estate, undivided share, Wilson J, ZAGPJHC 34 You Can’t Have Your Divorce and Keep the Estate Too: T.S.Y v L.E.Y (2022/3952) [2026] ZAGPJHC 34 (26 January 2026) on the Inseparability of Divorce and Asset Division in Marriages in Community of Property. The Factual Matrix: A Long-Separated Couple and the Quest for a "Clean" Divorce The applicant, TSY, and the respondent, LEY, married in community of property on 27 July 1989. The… READ MORE
22/01/2026 Bertus Preller Antenuptial Contracts, Antenuptial Contracts, Black Coffee, Black women property rights, Constitutional Court customary law, Constitutional law, Customary Law, Customary marriage dissolution, Customary marriage requirements, Customary Marriages, Divorce, Divorce summons South Africa, EB v ER Constitutional Court, In Community of Property, matrimonial asset division, Matrimonial Properties Act, Matrimonial property forfeiture, Out of community of property, Procedural Law, Recognition of Customary Marriages Act, Recognition of Customary Marriages Act 120 of 1998, Recognition of Customary Marriages Act, Section 8 RCMA, Section 10(2) Antenuptial Contracts, black women property rights, civil marriages, community of property, Constitutional Court judgment, constitutional invalidity, creditor protection, customary law, customary marriages, Deeds Registries Act, dissenting judgment, family law South Africa, Gumede case, joint estate, judicial oversight, Majiedt J, marriage conversion, Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984, Matrimonial Property Regime, out of community of property, postnuptial contracts, Recognition of Customary Marriages Act 120 of 1998, Rogers J, section 10(2), section 21 MPA, section 25 Constitution, section 7(2) Recognition Act, section 9 Constitution, spousal property rights, VVC v JRM The Antenuptial Contract Controversy: VVC v JRM and Others [2026] ZACC 2 (21 January 2026) and the Constitutional Court’s Divided Stance on Customary-to-Civil Marriage Conversions. Factual Matrix: From Customary Union to Civil Marriage and the Antenuptial Contract Conundrum The applicant, VVC, and the first respondent, JRM, entered into a customary marriage on 5 August 2011.… READ MORE
20/01/2026 Bertus Preller Accrual Calculation, Accrual Calculator, Accrual claims, Accrual system, Alimony, Asset Disclosure, Costs, Divorce, Exceptional circumstances separation, Financial Disclosure, Interim Maintenance, Maintenance Calculator, Maintenance Calculator, matrimonial asset division, Matrimonial Properties Act, Rule 43, Rule 43 Applications, Rule 43 orders, section 10 MPA, Separation Applications, Separation of issues, Spousal Maintenance accrual system divorce proceedings, antenuptial contract accrual system, balance of convenience separation, bifurcated divorce proceedings, cost of separation applications, Denel v Vorster separation principles, divorce accrual claim, exceptional circumstances separation, expeditious disposal litigation, financially vulnerable spouse, formal tenders divorce, full disclosure matrimonial assets, Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act, maintenance security life policy, matrimonial property act section 7, matrimonial property disclosure duties, post-divorce maintenance uncertainty, prejudice to respondent spouse, procedural protection vulnerable spouse, Rule 33(4) separation of issues, Rule 43 interim relief, section 10 MPA deferred payment, section 4(2) divorce act, South African divorce law 2026, spousal maintenance claim, strike date accrual calculation, upfront payment accrual, Western Cape High Court family law, Wille J divorce judgment Why Formal Tenders Matter: Separation Refused Without Security for Vulnerable Spouse in AMG and Another v TSG (2025/057077) [2026] ZAWCHC 6 (19 January 2026). Factual Matrix: A Marriage Breakdown Complicated by Accrual and Maintenance Claims The matter before Wille, J concerned a marriage of over three decades that had irretrievably broken down, but in… READ MORE
17/01/2026 Bertus Preller Abuse, Appeal, Contempt of Court, Domestic Violence, Domestic Violence, Domestic Violence Act 116 of 1998, Interim Protection Order, Interim relief with no final effect, Irreparable harm test, Procedural Law, Qwelane test coercion property sale, contempt of court divorce, contempt proceedings enforcement, divorce decree enforcement, divorce property disputes, Domestic Violence Act 116 of 1998, domestic violence protection orders, domestic violence warrant execution, economic abuse definition, exceptional circumstances appeal, grave injustice test, High Court Gauteng Division, interim interdict appealability, interim interdicts South Africa, interim relief with no final effect, irreparable harm test, leave to appeal interim relief, marital home sale dispute, property sale cooperation, property sale disputes divorce, protection order breach, Qwelane test, section 1 Domestic Violence Act, South African Family Law, Springs Domestic Violence Court, VM v JM 2025, warrant of arrest domestic violence, Wilson J judgment, ZAGPJHC 1269 When Interim Interdicts Cannot Be Appealed: Domestic Violence Warrants and Property Sales in V.M v J.M (2025/203538) [2025] ZAGPJHC 1269 (18 December 2025). Background and Factual Matrix: The Domestic Violence Warrant and Property Sale Dispute The matter before Wilson J arose from an application by JM, the respondent, for leave to appeal against… READ MORE
17/01/2026 Bertus Preller Abuse, Contumacious conduct, Costs, Divorce, Domestic Violence, Domestic Violence, Emotional Abuse, Financial Abuse, Forfeiture of Benefits, Forfeiture patrimonial benefits, Harassment, In Community of Property, Marital misconduct, Matrimonial property forfeiture, Physical Abuse, Psychological Abuse, Punitive costs orders, Sexual Abuse, Substantial misconduct, Substantial misconduct, Verbal Abuse costs in divorce, discretion of court, divorce proceedings South Africa, domestic violence, drug and alcohol abuse, duration of marriage, Engelbrecht v Engelbrecht, financial delinquency, financial irresponsibility, Forfeiture of benefits, interim protection orders, marital breakdown, marriage in community of property, Mashola v Mashola, matrimonial property, municipal debt, no-fault divorce, patrimonial benefits, pension benefit misconduct, section 9(1) Divorce Act, spousal abuse, substantial misconduct, transfer of property, two-stage approach, unduly benefited test, value judgment, Wijker principles When Domestic Violence and Financial Delinquency Justify Forfeiture: Analysis of W.M.C.M v U.A.M (7390/2018) [2026] ZAGPPHC 5 (12 January 2026). The Factual Matrix: A Pattern of Misconduct and Financial Delinquency The parties in this matter were married in community of property on 16 December 2000. The marriage endured for approximately… READ MORE
16/01/2026 Bertus Preller Adultery, Children, Divorce, Divorce Act section 9, Forfeiture of Benefits, Forfeiture patrimonial benefits, In Community of Property, Matrimonial property forfeiture, Pension Funds, Pension Funds Act 24 of 1956, Pension interest, Substantial misconduct, Substantial misconduct, Undue benefit test adultery extra-marital relationship, balancing contributions misconduct, Botha v Botha forfeiture, BS v PS isolated misconduct, credibility assessment divorce proceedings, cumulative misconduct assessment, discretion costs divorce matters, divorce irretrievable breakdown, domestic contributions recognition, duration of marriage neutral factor, family law Gauteng Division, forfeiture patrimonial benefits, homemaker contributions divorce, humiliation spouse dignity, marriage in community of property, Mashola v Mashola holistic approach, Municipal Gratuity Fund, non-financial contributions marriage, partial forfeiture pension only, pension interest forfeiture, procreation with third party, public humiliation Facebook, sale joint estate property, section 9 Divorce Act, social media pregnancy announcement, substantial misconduct divorce, two-step forfeiture test, undue benefit divorce, value judgment forfeiture orders Forfeiture of Pension Benefits for Adultery, Procreation and Public Humiliation via Social Media: E.M v S.M (096891/2024) [2026] ZAGPPHC 8 (12 January 2026). Factual Background: Extra-Marital Relationship and the Birth of a Third Child The parties in this matter were married in community of property on 10 January 2011. Their marriage, which lasted… READ MORE