A Pretoria woman’s attempt to challenge a settlement agreement made during her divorce, which required her to vacate a property bought and maintained by her ex-husband, has been dismissed after her application for leave to appeal was rejected. The case stems from a long-running dispute between the woman and her former spouse, following their divorce in March 2016 after almost four years of marriage. Before finalizing the divorce, the couple entered into a settlement agreement that stipulated the ex-husband would provide housing for his ex-wife in a suitable security complex, where she would live with their child. The agreement also outlined his responsibility for paying the levies, insurance, and security costs related to the property.
However, the agreement included a specific condition that should the ex-wife remarry or cohabit with another person, the ex-husband would no longer be obligated to provide her with accommodation. In February 2017, the ex-husband fulfilled his part of the agreement by purchasing a house for his ex-wife, enabling her to stay there with their child. The situation remained stable until October 2020, when the ex-husband learned that his ex-wife had remarried or was cohabiting with another partner, and that a child had been born from this relationship.
Following this revelation, the ex-husband informed his former wife, through his attorneys, that his obligation to provide housing was no longer in effect. She was subsequently given notice to vacate the property by the end of November 2020. When she refused to leave, the ex-husband initiated an eviction application in January 2021, which remains pending. During this time, the ex-wife sought relief in the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria, where she requested the court to rescind the settlement agreement. She claimed that her ex-husband had been dishonest during their divorce proceedings, accusing him of fraudulent conduct and requesting that the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) investigate his actions. She further sought an inquiry by the Legal Practice Council (LPC) into his professional conduct, arguing that the settlement agreement had been signed under duress and in the absence of legal representation.
Despite her claims, the high court dismissed her application, stating that she had failed to provide sufficient, credible, and compelling evidence to support her allegations. The court also ruled that she would bear the costs of the application. Dissatisfied with the decision, the woman appealed the ruling, asserting that she had been discriminated against due to her gender and that the court’s costs order was based on an incorrect legal principle.
Acting Judge A.K. Ramlal, who had heard both the original application and the appeal, reaffirmed the reasons for the dismissal of the application, which were clearly outlined in the previous judgment. The judge emphasized that it was unnecessary to repeat those reasons, as they had already been extensively covered in the original ruling. Judge Ramlal noted that the ex-wife’s application had been marked by significant non-compliance, and he doubted that any other court would reach a different conclusion regarding the absence of misrepresentation, undue influence, or duress when she signed the settlement agreement.
After reviewing the grounds for appeal, the judge found no merit in the woman’s claims and expressed confidence that the original decision would stand. “Upon a thorough reflection of the grounds cited in the application for leave to appeal, and in light of the reasons given in my judgment, I am not persuaded that another court would arrive at a different decision,” the judge concluded. He also reaffirmed his position on the costs order, which he maintained was fully justified based on the details presented in the judgment. As a result, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, with costs awarded to the ex-husband.
