The North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria has upheld a divorce settlement agreement that a man sought to retract after claiming that he wasn’t aware when he signed it, despite signing it twice.

After nearly 16 years of marriage, the ex-wife initiated the divorce process. She informed the court that they had agreed on a settlement prior to the hearings, which stated that it was agreed that the ex-husband would transfer half of his share of their Centurion home to her.

In her summons, she included the settlement agreement, signed by her and two witnesses.

Going through the details of the settlement last signed in April 2022, she testified that the settlement agreement reflects that they agreed that they will both maintain parental rights and responsibilities for their two children, establishing that the children would live with her. 

It was also agreed that the father would pay a monthly R4,000 for each child, and she would not receive any spousal maintenance. Additionally, she mentioned that her ex-husband not only signed the settlement agreement that he sent to her via courier but also signed another copy after they met at her lawyer’s office at a later time.

Three months later, the man reneged, he filed a notice of intention to defend the divorce action and challenge the settlement agreement.

He testified that he was emotionally affected by the divorce proceedings. According to his explanation, he thought he was acknowledging receipt of the summons when he signed the settlement agreement. He also denied that there was any discussion regarding a settlement. 

However, during cross-examination, he was drawn to the fact that he not only signed the settlement agreement in March 2022, but that two witnesses cosigned it, and that he also added his email address and cell number to the document. In April 2022, another copy of the settlement agreement was signed by him, and two witnesses again co-signed it. 

Judge Elmarie van der Schyff was not impressed by the man’s testimony, noting his vague responses when questioned about why he had signed the agreement a second time. She indicated that his claim of thinking he was acknowledging receipt of the summons when signing the hardcopy settlement agreement lacked credibility.

Furthermore, the judge said the man’s explanation that he was acknowledging receipt of the summons when he signed and returned the hard copy of the settlement agreement did not hold water.

She mentioned that although the man may lack formal legal education, he acknowledges that he is not an uninformed or uneducated individual. He works as a consulting engineer, a detail he revealed only when the court asked him.

“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. This conduct is not indicative of an intention to defend a divorce action but leads to the only logical inference that the parties settled the issues between them on the terms contained in the agreement,” said the judge.

The judge also dismissed his argument that that he signed the document the second time because he was directed to do so. It was said he failed to provide enough evidence for the court to conclude that he was improperly pressured or forced into signing the agreement, nor that it had been obtained through deceit.

“Mr. S is an educated person. No evidence indicates that he was misled. The language of the agreement is straightforward and non-technical. The evidence does not indicate that any undue pressure was exerted to force him to sign,” added the judge.

Ultimately, the divorce was granted and the court also determined that the agreement was binding; the ex-husband would have to abide by it.

sinenhlanhla.masilela@iol.co.za

IOL News

Get your news on the go, click here to join the IOL News WhatsApp channel. 

Source link