Court Upholds Divorce Settlement Despite Husband’s Claims of Misunderstanding

The Gauteng Division of the High Court in Pretoria delivered a decisive judgment in a contentious divorce case, after ruling that a settlement agreement signed twice by the defendant remains legally binding despite his claims that he misunderstood what he was signing. Judge van der Schyff handed down judgment in the matter between Mrs O L and Mr S L, a couple who married in community of property in July 2006 and have two minor children together.

The case centred on a settlement agreement that Mrs L claimed both parties had signed. The agreement, dated 21 February 2022, covered parental rights, child maintenance, and the division of marital assets. It provided for Mrs L to retain primary residence of the children, with Mr L paying R4,000 monthly maintenance per child. Crucially, it also stipulated that full ownership of the couple’s immovable property would be transferred to Mrs L.

However, Mr L mounted a defence claiming he never intended to enter into a settlement agreement. His legal team argued that when he first signed the document on 25 March 2022, he believed he was merely acknowledging receipt of the divorce summons. Mr L, who works as a consulting engineer, maintained that he was unaware of the implications of what he had signed.

The case took an unusual turn when it emerged that Mr L had signed the same settlement agreement on two separate occasions. After initially signing and couriering the document back to his estranged wife, he attended a meeting with Mrs L and her legal representative on 11 April 2022, where he signed another copy of the identical agreement.

During cross-examination, Mr L’s credibility came under scrutiny. Judge van der Schyff noted that his answers were vague and elusive, and that he initially attempted to avoid disclosing his profession as a consulting engineer. The judge observed that Mr L was not an ignorant or uneducated person and should have understood the nature of the document he was signing.

Mrs L’s legal counsel argued that the fundamental legal principle of “caveat subscriptor” (let the signer beware) should apply. They emphasised that Mr L had signed the clearly titled “Settlement Agreement” twice, in the presence of witnesses, and had even added his contact details to the document.

The defence focused particularly on clause 6.1.2 of the agreement, which dealt with the forfeiture of Mr L’s interest in the couple’s immovable property. Mr L’s counsel argued that Mrs L had attempted to “sneak the forfeiture” through “the back door” and that no proper agreement had been reached regarding the property division.

However, the court was unconvinced by these arguments. In the judgment, Judge van der Schyff noted that the document was “clearly titled ‘Settlement Agreement’” with an “clear and unambiguous” preamble expressing the parties’ desire to settle their divorce terms. The judge found that Mr L’s explanation for signing the document the first time “does not hold water.”

More damaging to Mr L’s case was his admission that he had signed the agreement a second time after discussions with Mrs L’s legal representative. The judge ruled that this second signing rendered moot any argument about his understanding when he first signed the document.

Applying established legal precedents including the Constitutional Court’s guidance in University of Johannesburg v Auckland Park Theological Seminary,¹ the court emphasised that courts must interpret contracts by considering “text, context, and purpose together.” It found that the factual context, an imminent divorce with a clearly labelled settlement agreement, supported enforcing the agreement’s terms.

The judge rejected any suggestion of fraud, misrepresentation, or undue duress, and noted that no such grounds had been properly pleaded or proven. She stressed that Mr L was an educated professional who should be held accountable for documents bearing his signature. Significantly, the judgment reinforced the principle of “pacta sunt servanda,”² which the judge noted had withstood constitutional muster in South African law.

The court granted a decree of divorce, which incorporated the disputed settlement agreement, meaning Mrs L would receive full ownership of the marital property while Mr L will be responsible for the agreed child maintenance payments.

You can read the full judgement here

Written by Theo Tembo