Court enforces divorce settlement amid husband's allegations of ignorance
A divorcing husband's decision to hand his portion of the matrimonial home over to his wife, came to haunt him as he had second thoughts, but the court held a signed agreement, especially when signed twice, is binding.
Image: File
An ex-husband attempted to backpedal on the divorce agreement he made with his former wife and claimed he was not aware of what he had agreed to when he accepted the terms and conditions of the settlement.
The man in question, a working consulting engineer, claimed that he did not have an education in legal matters, therefore, he erred by signing the settlement agreement, which the judge in the matter did not agree with.
Judge Elmarie van der Schyff sitting in the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria also ruled that the language of the agreement was straightforward and he was not pressured into signing it.
The couple were married for16 years before they went separate ways.
The case began with the ex-wife's initiation of divorce proceedings, during which she informed the court of a pre-arranged settlement.
This agreement stipulated that the ex-husband would transfer half of his share of their home in Centurion to her.
Alongside her summons, she submitted the signed settlement agreement, which bore the signatures of two witnesses, further solidifying its authenticity.
During her testimony, the ex-wife detailed the specifics of the agreement. Recorded in the settlement was their mutual decision to maintain parental rights for their two children, with residence allocated to her.
It also mandated that the father pay R4,000 monthly for each child, while she would not receive any spousal maintenance. Critically, the agreement had been formally signed by the man, first when delivered via courier and a second time in a meeting at her lawyer's office.
However, three months later, the ex-husband attempted to retract his commitment, filing a notice to defend the divorce action and contest the settlement agreement. His assertion was that he had been emotionally affected by the divorce proceedings and believed he was merely acknowledging receipt of the summons when he signed.
During the court proceedings, his credibility wavered as Judge van der Schyff dissected his testimony. She highlighted his inconsistent statements, particularly about the second signature, which he had provided under circumstances that seemed to contradict his claims of misunderstanding.
Despite the man's assertion of confusion, the court noted his actions weighed against him. He had not only signed the settlement agreement in March 2022 but had also taken the additional step of ensuring it was co-signed by witnesses. He acknowledged adding his email address and cell phone number to the document—a fact that seemed incompatible with his claim of ignorance.
Judge van der Schyff dismissed his arguments, noting that his lack of a formal legal education did not equate to being uninformed. As a working consulting engineer, she asserted that he possessed the capacity to understand the agreement's implications.
"Mr. S did not merely sign the document and hand it back to the Sheriff of the court; he took his time, had the document co-signed by witnesses, and then returned it to Mrs. O," she remarked. The judge maintained that this behaviour pointed to a fair and informed settlement between the parties.
The court rejected claims that he had been pressured into signing the agreement, finding no evidence to substantiate such claims. The judge noted that the language used in the agreement was straightforward and clear, and there was no indication of undue influence during its creation.
Ultimately, the divorce was granted, and the settlement agreement was deemed legally binding, culminating in a judicial conclusion that mandates the ex-husband to adhere to its stipulations.
DAILY NEWS