The wife had to sell her engagement ring to make ends meet.
Picture: iStock
An accrual calculation has been cited as one of the contributing factors to what the Johannesburg High Court has described as “protracted and acrimonious” divorce proceedings.
The couple instituted divorce proceedings in January 2014, and the matter was set down for trial on multiple occasions.
The first trial date was 8 March 2018, four years later, and was still postponed.
The second trial date was two years later, on 31 January 2022, and was postponed by agreement due to the husband’s bicycle accident.
The third trial date was set for 20 November 2023 and postponed because the husband failed to comply with a court order. The court set another date for 31 August 2026.
The wife approached the court seeking a further contribution towards her legal costs to enable her to prepare for the trial. The husband opposed the application and brought a counter-application seeking maintenance and a contribution towards his own trial costs, along with other ancillary relief.
Acting Judge Ntombizanele Ndlokovane had to decide whether the wife had shown that she lacked the means to fund the impending trial and whether the husband had the financial ability to contribute towards her costs.
The counter-application raised the further question whether the husband, who appears on the papers to be the wealthier of the two spouses, can plausibly claim maintenance from the wife.
The wife’s case
In court papers, the wife said her application was necessary as the husband has failed and refused to contribute to her legal costs for the divorce proceedings.
She described her financial position as “dire”, saying she had no assets to fund the litigation. The wife even had to sell her engagement ring to make ends meet.
She lives with her two minor children at her parents’ house in Durban. Her parents recently passed on, and she now faces eviction because she is unable to pay the monthly bond instalment on her parents’ home due to the delay in winding up their estates.
The wife calculated her monthly expenditure at R65 495, including the R3 000 monthly maintenance the husband was ordered to pay for the children. However, he has not honoured the payments for three years.
She further calculated her expenditure on the children from November 2023 to May 2026 to be R1.57 million. This includes school fees, medical aid, clothing, groceries, and other expenses.
She accused the husband of not disclosing assets and income, including:
- Unexplained deposits of R5.9 million into his bank account between January 2020 and December 2022
- An undisclosed annuity payment of R47,641.03;
- A R1 million credit on 29 November 2022;
- Cash deposits of R99 900 on 28 August 2023 and R40 000 on 2 October 2023;
- A Body 20 franchise allegedly bought for his girlfriend, which he initially denied owning;
- A shareholders’ loan of R3.4 millionas at 28 February 2018;
- Inheritance from his late mother’s estate (he is a one-third heir)
- A property in the United Kingdom
- A watch collection;
- And a flat in Cape Town.
Divorce battle: the husband’s case
The husband sought to have the wife’s application struck from the roll for want of urgency, alternatively, to be dismissed with costs on the attorney-and-client scale.
He also brought a counter-application seeking:
- An order that the wife pay him maintenance pendente lite of R30 000 per month from 1 August 2026
- That the wife pay R179 600 towards his costs of the trial
- Alternatively, that the amounts ordered be paid out of the funds attached and held in trust in terms of the previous order
- That the admitted arrear maintenance of R96 000 (from December 2023 to July 2026) be paid to the wife out of the attached funds for the benefit of the minor children
- That each payment be brought to account in the determination of the accrual at trial.
‘Transparent wife’
The judge found that the wife provided detailed monthly expenses and earnings, unlike the husband, who did not fully disclose.
“The Respondent’s financial position is opaque, and this opacity appears to be deliberate,” said the judge.
“The Respondent professes to be unemployed and claims his only source of income is rental. However, the Applicant has raised compelling evidence that the Respondent has received substantial funds in the recent past.
“The Respondent’s bank statements, as analysed by the Applicant, show unexplained deposits totalling more than R5.9 million between 2020 and 2022.
“He has received an inheritance from his late mother’s estate. He has a Body 20 franchise, a property in the UK and a flat in Cape Town. The Respondent has a watch collection and lent R2.9 million to his girlfriend, interest-free, without adequately explaining the source of those funds.
“The Respondent spent R47 200 at Pandora jewellery, R15 999 at Hugo Boss, R7 600 at Freddy SA, R90 000 to Mike Designs Jewellery, and R80 000 for a diamond – all while claiming to be impecunious.”
“I am satisfied that the Respondent has the means to pay a contribution towards the Applicant’s costs. The question is the quantum.”
The judge found the husband’s maintenance and legal fee claims without merit.
“The Respondent’s counter-application appears to be a tactical response to the Applicant’s application rather than a genuine claim for relief. It is dismissed,” said the judge.
He was ordered to pay the costs of the divorce trial, R670 000, into the trust account of the wife’s attorneys of record.
