A divorcing husband, who signed a divorce agreement twice in which he agreed to sign over his half of the matrimonial home to his wife, came back to haunt him as he wanted to retract the agreement.

The husband told the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, that he thought the documents he was signing were only to acknowledge that he got the court papers. But this excuse did not hold water with the court, which pointed out that as an engineer, he is an intelligent man who knew what he was doing.

His wife instituted the divorce proceedings against him. She claimed that even before they went to court, they had reached a settlement in which he handed half of their home to her. She attached a settlement agreement signed by her and two witnesses to the summons.

The husband had clearly signed the agreement, together with two witnesses, and couriered it to his wife. A month later he again signed the settlement agreement at a meeting with his wife’s lawyers. He, however, never explained why he had signed it twice.

Some time passed and the husband had a change of heart. He filed a notice of intention to defend the divorce action. While he wants a divorce, he now denies that a settlement agreement was concluded between him and his wife.

He testified that he was emotionally affected by the divorce proceedings. He thought he was acknowledging receipt of the summons when he signed the settlement agreement. He admitted that he later signed another copy of the same agreement.

He said he was told during this meeting what he had to agree to, and therefore signed the agreement. He later decided he was not in agreement with what he was told to sign and obtained legal representation. He denied that there was any discussion regarding a settlement.

Judge Elmarie van der Schyff was not impressed by the husband’s evidence and said he was vague when asked to explain why he signed the agreement a second time. She said his explanation that he thought he was acknowledging receipt of the summons when he signed and returned the hard copy settlement agreement does not hold water.

“He might not be educated in the law, but he is, by his own admission, not an ignorant, unschooled person. He is a consulting engineer, a fact he only disclosed after being prompted by the court.”

The judge also noted that the document he signed with two witnesses is clearly titled “settlement agreement.” “The preamble to the agreement is clear and unambiguous. It expresses the desire of two parties who acknowledge that their marriage has irretrievably broken down, to settle the matter in the terms contained in the agreement,” she said.

Judge Van der Schyff found the husband was not misled in signing the document not once, but twice. This is a binding agreement and he will have to live with it, the court found.

zelda.venter@inl.co.za

Source link