eg pay double the amount of maintenance claimed by respondent. In any event, to have made orders in total disregard of the agreement between the parties (and at least implicitly sanctioned by the court a quo) and the audi alterim rule amounted to a vitiating irregularity and there’s no basis to allow it to stand. Apart from this, the orders are clearly prejudicial to appellant. When it comes to costs, the court correctly found against the a quo appellant on the only issue that it had to decide at the hearing, namely the proprietary regime applicable to the marriage. It follows that the respondent is entitled to the costs of that hearing as she was successful in respect of the issue that had to be determined. As far as the appeal is concerned, the respondent opposed all aspects thereof and although appellant has not succeeded in establishing that the court a quo erred in its finding that the marriage was in community of property he has been successful in his attack on the other orders granted by the court a quo. At the hearing of this appeal counsel for respondent however conceded that the orders a quo other than the finding relating to the marriage being in community of property cannot stand. Arguments on appeal thus virtually exclusively focussed on the issue of the proprietary consequences of the marriage. The appeal can thus be termed to be partially successful. In the circumstances I am of the view that each party should pay its own costs on appeal and the order I make reflects this position. In the result I make the following order: The appeal is reinstated;
eg pay double the amount of maintenance claimed by respondent. In any event, to have made orders in total disregard of the agreement between the parties (and at least implicitly sanctioned by the court a quo) and the audi alterim rule amounted to a vitiating irregularity and there’s no basis to allow it to stand. Apart from this, the orders are clearly prejudicial to appellant. When it comes to costs, the court a quo correctly found against the appellant on the only issue that it had to decide at the hearing, namely the proprietary regime applicable to the marriage. It follows that the respondent is entitled to the costs of that hearing as she was successful in respect of the issue that had to be determined. As far as the appeal is concerned, the respondent opposed all aspects thereof and although appellant has not succeeded in establishing that the court a quo erred in its finding that the marriage was in community of property he has been successful in his attack on the other orders granted by the court a quo. At the hearing of this appeal counsel for respondent however conceded that the orders a quo other than the finding relating to the marriage being in community of property cannot stand. Arguments on appeal thus virtually exclusively focussed on the issue of the proprietary consequences of the marriage. The appeal can thus be termed to be partially successful. In the circumstances I am of the view that each party should pay its own costs on appeal and the order I make reflects this position. In the result I make the following order: The appeal is reinstated;
Shambwila%20v%20Mundjulu%20(SA%2077%20-%202016)%20[2018]%20NASC%20(27%20July%202018).docx