Zantsi v Zantsi

• Jurisdiction: http://justis.com/jurisdiction/166,South Africa
• Judge: JGA Laing J
• Judgment Date: 30 August 2022
• Docket Number: EL1154/2022
• Hearing Date: 23 August 2022
• Court: East London Circuit Local Division
• Citation: 2022 JDR 2561 (ECGEL)

Laing J:

[1]

This is an application brought in terms of rule 43.

[2]

The parties are married in community of property and are the parents of two minor children (a boy and a girl), aged 16 and 13 respectively. The applicant has instituted divorce proceedings.

[3]

Both parties are employed. The applicant is employed as an Acting Manager at the Amathole District Municipality, the respondent is employed as a Senior Manager at the East London Industrial Development Zone. It is common cause that the parties are or were joint owners of three immovable properties, one having been sold recently.

[4]

Each of the parties filed comprehensive affidavits. By the time that the matter was heard, counsel had succeeded in narrowing the issues considerably.

2022 JDR 2561 p2

Laing J

[5]

In relation to the remaining issues, the respondent denies that he uses alcohol excessively. There is no indication, however, that he contests the details of purchases made from various liquor retailers and taverns, as apparent from the bank statement that was attached to the applicant's affidavit. It is necessary for the court, in the circumstances, to attach some qualification to the respondent's right of access, as appears in the order that follows.

[6]

Moreover, the court understands counsel for the applicant to have accepted, during argument, reduced amounts payable as maintenance pendente lite with regard to each of the children and the applicant herself. The adjusted amounts are reflected in the order.

[7]

The respondent has already tendered payment of the costs of extra lessons to the institution concerned and avers that it is not necessary to pay same directly to the applicant. The applicant has indicated that the latter approach would be preferable to ensure that the costs are settled timeously, without issue. The court agrees.

[8]

The applicant is satisfied that she will retain the children as dependants in terms of her medical aid membership, the costs of which being subsidized by her employer. Nevertheless, she has claimed payment from the respondent of all medical expenses not covered, including hers. It would be fair to limit the respondent's liability to expenses incurred only for the children.

[9]

The respondent undertakes to continue making payment of the instalments and insurance owing with regard to the Toyota Fortuner (registered as JLG 336 EC), currently used by the applicant, but only until the date of the...