About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
>>
2020
>>
[2020] ZAGPJHC 439
|
|
NV v SAV (24888/2019) [2020] ZAGPJHC 439 (15 September 2020)
SAFLII
Note:
Certain
personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been
redacted from this document in compliance with the law
and
SAFLII
Policy
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE
NO: 24888/2019
REPORTABLE:
YES
/NO
OF
INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
REVISED
15/09/2020
In
the matter between:
N[....]
V[....]
APPLICANT
And
S[....]
A[....]
V[....]
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT:
RULE 43
VUKEYA
AJ
INTRODUCTION
1.
This is an Application in terms of Rule 43
of the Uniform Rules of Court. The Applicant, who is the Plaintiff in
the divorce action,
seeks an order
pendente
lite
in the following terms:
1.1.
Maintenance for herself in the amount of
R50 000, 00 per month;
1.2.
Maintenance for her two children born on 07
July 2011 and 01 October 2013, (9 and 7 years old respectively) in
the amount of R15 000,
00 per month per child;
1.3.
An order for payment by the Respondent of
her legal costs to the value of R150 000, 00;
1.4.
An order for parental rights and
responsibilities including contact and care of both children;
1.5.
Payment by the Respondent to the Applicant
of an amount in arrears for maintenance (R155 000, 00) in terms
of a court order
granted on 05 December 2019.
BACKGROUND
2.
The Applicant and the Respondent were
married on 12 December 2012 out of community of property by
ante-nuptial contract subject
to the Accrual System in terms of the
provisions of Chapter 1 of the
Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984
.
Two children were born out of this marriage. The marriage has,
according to the Applicant, irretrievably broken down and is in
such
a state of disintegration that it cannot be restored. Divorce
proceedings have been instituted and the divorce action is pending.
3.
The parties are co-owners of a property
called the H[....] Property situated at [....] H[....] Village, Short
street Fourways, Johannesburg,
Gauteng Province. According to the
submissions the appellant and the children have vacated that property
to live in a rented property.
4.
The Applicant describes the Respondent as a
person who is well able to afford the comfortable lifestyle he
provided for her and
her children when they lived together. She
alleges that the Respondent contributed to the expenses of the
matrimonial home as follows:
4.1.
He maintained her and the two children and
took care of all their expenses;
4.2.
He took care of monthly bond payments in
respect of the matrimonial home, rates, taxes, water and lights
accounts;
4.3.
He paid insurances; cell phone bills;
bought groceries and clothing for her and the two children;
4.4.
He paid expenses in respect of her motor
vehicle; fuel and transport costs for her and the minor children;
4.5.
He also paid for entertainment and overseas
travel;
4.6.
He paid all expenses in respect of school
fees and other school relating expenses including extra-mural
activities in respect of
the minor children.
5.
The Applicant alleges in her founding
affidavit that she would receive from the Respondent an amount of
R100 000, 00 for the
household expenses mentioned above. She
indicated in her Supplementary Affidavit that at the time of deposing
to her Founding Affidavit,
she worked at Perx Consulting as a
Financial Manager but due to Covid-19 her contract was terminated and
she became unemployed
with no source of income. When she worked for
Perx Consulting she first earned R40 000, 00 and later R50 000,
00. When
she became unemployed she informed the Respondent of her
situation but he did not help her with anything. She had to sell some
of her belongings to look after herself and the two children, she
even had to sell her immovable property and rent a place to stay
with
her children and her mother.
6.
The Respondent is a businessman and a
director of O[....] Project Services conducting its business at
Goldfields Mine, Western Area,
in the Gauteng Province. Subsequent to
the institution of the divorce action the Applicant applied for a
Rule 43
and the court granted an Interim order in terms of which the
Respondent was ordered to pay R15 000, 00 per month per child
starting on 28 December 2019 and thereafter on or before the 28
th
of each succeeding month and to continue paying school fees for the
two children. The Respondent was further ordered to file his
affidavit regarding the change in his financial circumstances before
13 December 2019. The Respondent failed to fully comply with
the
interim order in that he filed his affidavit in January 2020. This
court granted him condonation for the late filing of his
supplementary affidavits. He also failed to pay maintenance as
directed to in terms of the Interim Court Order.
7.
He submitted that during October 2019 when
he deposed to his Opposing Affidavit the monthly income for him and
his business was
R338 861. 77, however some of the contractors
elected not to renew their contracts. One of the companies named
Goldfields,
from whom his business earned a monthly income of at
least R280 000, 00 terminated its contract and that resulted in
him being
unable to meet his financial obligations. He could also not
secure new contracts.
8.
The Applicant and the Respondent have both
filed documents disclosing their financial commitments and supporting
documents to prove
their respective expenses.
ISSUES
FOR DETERMINATION
9.
The following issues are for determination
in this matter:
9.1.
The amount to be paid for maintenance of
the two minor children;
9.2.
Whether the Applicant is entitled to
spousal maintenance and if so the amount to be paid;
9.3.
Parental responsibilities and rights
including contact and care of the two minor children;
9.4.
Whether the Respondent should be ordered to
pay the Applicant’s legal costs for the divorce action;
9.5.
Whether the Respondent is liable to pay the
arrears emanating from the Interim order granted on 5 December 2019.
Maintenance
of the two minor children
10.
The Applicant prays for an order for
payment of maintenance in the amount of R15 000, 00 per month,
per child. This amount
is the same as the amount tendered by the
Respondent and ordered in terms of the interim order granted in
December 2019. The Respondent
concedes that the two minor children
are entitled to maintenance
pendent lite
but submits that the Applicant’s claim is exorbitant and
unreasonable; he cannot afford to meet it. He states that he can
afford to pay R5000, 00 per month, per child (R10 000, 00);
school fees for both children; his pro-rata share of the children’s
school related and extra-mural expenses and contribute towards the
children’s medical expenses that are not paid by the medical
aid pro-rata, in accordance with his and the Applicant’s
income.
11.
Children are entitled to maintenance
pendent lite
,
depending on affordability element which the court is compelled to
consider and draw inferences in other instances to arrive at
a
reasonable sum to be paid for maintenance. The court which deals with
Rule 43 Applications, unlike the trial court, decides the
matter on
the papers and mostly on submissions made by counsel and it is
sometimes very difficult to be accurate with the figures.
In
Taute
v Taute
1974 (2) SA 675
(E) at 676 par
B-C Hart AJ said the following: “
there
are certain basic principles which in my view govern an Application
of this type. As already indicated such maintenance is
intended to be
interim and temporary, and cannot be determined with that degree of
precision and closer exactitude which is afforded
by detailed
evidence”.
12.
It is so that in the current Application
the Applicant alleges that she has become unemployed and the
Respondent alleges that his
income has taken a nosedive since
November 2019. However, the one party alleges that the other is not
being truthful about his/her
financial position. The court can only
draw inferences from the documents presented before it in order to
arrive at an interim
arrangement for maintenance pending the divorce
trial where evidence will be led and both parties cross examined
about their income
and liabilities.
13.
The Applicant’s expenditures are
recorded in her financial disclosure form attached to her documents.
She has recorded expenditures
to the total amount of R150 250,
00 for herself and the two minor children; approximately R65 000,
00 for the two children
and approximately R 90 000, 00 for
herself.
The
most remarkable expenditures for the children are the rent payments
to the value of R10 000, 00 per month; groceries R8700,
00 per
month; medication R1000.00. Medical expenditures which are recorded
as over the counter medicines are R1500, 00 per month;
doctor’s
bills and medicine R2000, 00; provisions for dentists R3500, 00; and
for Opthalmologist for Kade R1500; it is not
clear why these amounts
are claimed on a monthly basis when they seem like provisional or
occasional expenditures.
14.
The Applicant claims for medical expenses
and bills for medication to the total value of approximately R8500,
00 per month. These
two claims have not been substantiated and it is
not known how frequently incidents requiring additional funds to be
paid towards
the medical needs of any of the children occur. It will
be unjust and unfair for the court to order that these medical
expenditures
be paid on a monthly basis by the Respondent while it is
not clear why the total amount of R8500 is needed on a monthly basis
as
these are clearly occasional claims.
15.
I am also of the view that the amount
contributed by the two minor children for rental in a household with
two adults is exorbitant.
The Applicant stays with her two children
and her mother who does not seem to be making much of a contribution
in rental payments
in that household. While the children in the
household are paying an adult’s share of the rent, the
Applicant’s mother
is paying a child’s share. Generally
the child’s share of household expenditures is determined by
allocating one part
per child and two parts per adult which would
result in each child paying at least R4000, 00 and the two adults
R8000, 00 each.
16.
The Respondent submits that he cannot
afford to pay the amount of R15 000, 00 per child, per month.
His defence is that his
business has lost clients and took a nose
dive in the past few months. On the current contracts, his business
derives income of
approximately R105 000 per month from which he
must still pay salaries and other expenses; provisional tax and
medical aid
contributions on a monthly basis. His net disposable
income earned is therefore R81 000, 00 from which he must still
cater
for his expenses and pay maintenance and school fees. The
Applicant on the other hand informs the court that she became
unemployed
after Perx Consulting terminated her service. She had to
sell some of her property to make a living.
17.
The court has a duty to grant a maintenance
order which it finds just after having due regard to the prospective
means of the parties
and their respective needs and earning
capacities. The Applicant has lost her job and the Respondent’s
income is lower than
before and therefore the parties cannot expect
to live the luxurious life they were accustomed to when they still
lived together
as a family. At that time they were both employed and
the Respondent’s business was also doing well. After thorough
consideration
of the circumstances, I am of the view that an amount
of R10 000, 00 per month per child is reasonable for the
maintenance
of the two children.
Spousal
maintenance
18.
Section 7
of the
Divorce Act 70 of 1979
deals with spousal maintenance in divorce matters. It allows the
court to embark on an investigation in the financial affairs of
the
parties to look into their prospective means; their respective
earning capacity; financial needs and obligations; the standard
of
living of the parties before the divorce; etc. The court must
therefore strive to arrive at a conclusion that will be fair and
just
to both parties. It is important to note that a party may qualify for
maintenance upon divorce but it by no means follows
that the quantum
thereof should be such as to enable her to live to the same standards
as she enjoyed during the subsistence of
the marriage. (See
Louis
v Louis
1973
(2)
S 597
(T)
at 5980).
19.
The Applicant applies for spousal
maintenance in the amount of R50 000, 00 and alleges that she
has become unemployed after
Perx Consulting terminated her service.
It was argued that the letter she filed as proof of termination of
her contract of employment
was less formal and it also contained no
date on which it was written. There has been no explanation regarding
the filing of such
a letter but the court will accept it because of
its contents and relevance to the matter and further because there is
no evidence
to the contrary. She explains in her Founding affidavit
that she has no earning capacity and has had to rely on the sale of
some
of her assets to be able to maintain her and the two children.
According to the Respondent’s submissions the Applicant is
a
highly qualified person who can secure a well-paying job without a
struggle.
20.
In
Davies v
Davies
1939
W.L.D.108
at par 114 Ramsbottom J
pointed out that maintenance is an expenditure of a recurring nature
which is usually paid out of income
and that the circumstances may be
such where the income is inadequate or non-existent that the value of
the assets of the parties
may become relevant and material in
deciding questions of maintenance. Both the Applicant and the
Respondent rely on their altered
financial situations to support
their cases. Being unemployed the Applicant records expenses to the
value of R115 313, 00;
these expenses include petrol and
maintenance in the amount of R6125. 00. It is unclear why she uses so
much petrol on a monthly
basis and in my view that is an exorbitant
amount for an unemployed person. For groceries the Applicant uses an
amount of R5000,
00. It is important to mention that the two children
use about R8700, 00 per month which is R4 350, 00 per child for
groceries.
The Applicant has indicated that her mother lives with her
and her children in that household but there is no indication of how
much her contribution is to the groceries and other household
necessities.
21.
In
Kroon v
Kroon
1986
(4) SA 616
(E)
the court said that:
“
The
parties are no doubt aware that in most cases persons who have become
divorced will be compelled by necessity to reduce their
standard of
living, for where the available means of support are not adequate to
maintain both according to their former scale
of living, each must of
necessity scale down his or her budget… The fact of the matter
is that two living together can live
more cheaply than two living
apart, for obvious reasons such as the need for two residences plus
rates, maintenance, service charges,
and all the rest of it, two cars
plus concomitant expenses, two lots of household goods to buy and
maintain and so forth. The problem
of ‘indivisible expenses’
is a real one”
22.
When looking at the affordability element
in this matter it is clear that the amount of R50 000, claimed
by the Applicant will
not be affordable for the Respondent who has an
income of R81 000, 00. He must still be able to pay maintenance
for two children
and also take care of his own necessary
expenditures. What was said in the Kroon (supra) matter is more
relevant in the case in
consideration. The Applicant moved out of the
common household with the children and rented a place to stay. She
has since become
unemployed and the Respondent is the only person who
has a source of income from which he is expected to maintain himself,
the
two children and the Applicant who now reside in another
household where the head of that household is unemployed. It is
important
for the parties to realize the change in lifestyle and
adapt to new conditions befitting of their current financial status
and
actually cut down on those expenses that are not necessarily a
‘need’ but a ‘want’.
I
am of the view that an amount of R50 000, 00 per months will not
be affordable to the Respondent and am of the view that
R20 000,
00 is fair and just award for spousal maintenance for the Applicant.
Parental
responsibilities and rights of the children including contact and
care
23.
In terms of
section 18
(2) of the
Children’s Act 38 of 2005 the parental responsibilities and
rights that a person may have in respect of a child,
include the
responsibility and the right to care for the child; to maintain
contact with the child; act as a guardian of the child
and to
contribute to the maintenance of that child. This fulfils what
section 28 (2) of the Constitution provides that “a
child’s
best interests are of paramount importance in every matter concerning
the child”.
24.
It is therefore not in the best interests
of a child to be unjustly separated from his parent and for the child
to be unreasonably
precluded from maintaining contact with his parent
or family. The court as a guardian for all minor children should
always act
in the best interests of a child especially in matters
regarding contact and care of minor children.
25.
It is apparent from the documents in this
file that the parties are unable to find common ground more
especially where it concerns
contact and care of the two children.
They accuse each other of unbecoming behaviour and make allegations
of certain acts of domestic
violence being committed by the one
against the other. As a result of the conflict and misunderstanding
that exists between the
two there is no formal arrangement regarding
the contact and care of the children by the Respondent while the
children are in the
care of the Applicant.
26.
Though the Applicant concedes that it is in
the best interests of both children to maintain contact with the
Respondent she requests
the court to refer the issue regarding
contact and care to the office of the Family Advocate. The family
advocate is to conduct
an investigation and compile a report
concerning the best interests of the two children and assist with the
creation of a formal
parenting plan. I am in agreement with this
proposal as it seems the parties are unable to reach an amicable
solution on their
own. Furthermore, it is always advisable to refer
matters involving children to the office of the Family Advocate to
conduct an
investigation regarding what could be in the best
interests of the children before a final order is made. Nothing
however, precludes
this court from making an interim arrangement
pending the report of the Family Advocate especially under the
circumstances and
the facts presented in this Application. The
Applicant has alluded to the fact that the Respondent has always been
in contact with
the children and has conceded that it is in their
best interest. She also mentions that she has never taken issue with
the occasions
on which the Respondent has had contact with the
children. There are no reported incidents of abuse towards the
children by the
Respondent that may be a cause for concern in this
regard.
27.
The Applicant has requested the court to
grant an order that the Respondent’s contact with the minor
children should be on
condition that his state of sobriety is
confirmed prior to him collecting the minor children. There is no
basis for this prayer
and there are no reported incidents that would
raise a concern and persuade the court to grant such a prayer. The
Respondent requests
the court to order that he can have midweek
contact/ visitation with the children and that he can have the
children until Monday
when it is his turn to have them for the
weekend. The children still attend school and to interrupt their
school week for a visit
will cause unnecessary disruptions to their
school programme. It is however fair to allow telephonic contacts at
reasonable times
and that they be returned on Sunday afternoon to
prepare themselves for school the next morning.
Contribution
towards the legal fees of the Applicant
28.
In
Cary v Cary
1999 (3) SA 615
(C)
Donen AJ made the following observation:
‘…
Applicant
is entitled to a contribution towards the costs which would ensure
equality of arms in the divorce action against her
husband. The
Applicant would not be able to present her case fairly unless she is
empowered to investigate Respondent’s financial
affairs through
the forensic accountant appointed by her. That is, Applicant will not
enjoy equal protection unless she is equally
empowered with the
“sinews of war”. The question of protecting Applicant’s
right to and respect for and protection
of her dignity also arises in
the present situation, where a wife has to approach her husband for
the means to divorce him. I therefore
regard myself as being
constitutionally bound to err on the side of the ‘paramount
consideration that she should be enabled
adequately to place her case
before the court’.
The papers
before me indicate that Respondent can afford to pay the amount
claimed and that he will not be prejudiced in the conduct
of his own
case should he be ordered to do so”
29.
I am in full agreement with the views
expressed and the approach adopted in the Cary matter as it was
intended at promoting the
spirit and purport of the Bill of rights
entrenched in our Constitution. It is important to note also that
Donen AJ balances the
need for financial assistance for legal fees
with the affordability element. It is impractical to burden the
Respondent with the
payment of legal fees of the Applicant if he
cannot afford it. And if that is the case, it is inevitable that he
will be prejudiced
in the conduct of his own case.
30.
In the present matter the appellant
submitted that due to the Respondent’s failure to comply with
the Interim Order she had
to carry all the costs relating to the
children’s maintenance and as a consequence she could not
settle her legal costs which
ultimately amounted to R110, 000. 00 as
at 31 January 2020. She requests the court to order the Respondent to
pay her legal costs
which currently amount to R150 000, 00.
According to the Respondent the Applicant is not entitled to this
remedy because her
latest bank statements indicate that she earns an
average income of approximately R80 000, 00 per month. It is the
Respondent’s
submission that the Applicant can afford to
litigate on equal footing with him. Not much is in dispute in the
divorce action according
to the Respondent’s submissions.
31.
In
Senior v
Senior
1999
(4) SA 955
(W)
at 963H-964A the court
summarized the essential principles to be applied in order to
determine the contribution towards costs as
follows:
1.
The test is that the Applicant
should be placed in a position to adequately present his case;
2.
The fact that the Respondent may be
wealthy does not entitle the claiming party to unlimited spending
there being a difference between
what he/she wants and what he/she
needs;
3.
What is adequate would depend on the
nature of the litigation and the scale on which the party from whom a
contribution is claimed
is litigating with due regard being had to
the financial position of the party against whom the contribution is
sought;
4.
The Applicant is not entitled to all
his/her costs of the trial but merely a contribution towards his or
her costs up to the first
day of trial;
5.
There is no reason in logical equity
that such a contribution should be limited to disbursements only and
to exclude them from the
attorneys’ reasonable fees.
32.
Counsel for the Respondent made submissions
that there are only two issues to be decided in the divorce trial;
namely; forfeiture
of accrual sharing and maintenance for the minor
children. She submitted that the ante-nuptial agreement concluded
between the
parties and the marital property regime is not in
dispute. Her submission is further that there is a possibility to
have the matter
settled before the trial resumes depending on the
circumstances.
On
face value, the issues in the divorce action are not complex and the
exorbitant amount of R150 000, 00 in legal fees is
unjustified.
The Applicant possesses assets to the value of R840 000, 00
comprising of a motor vehicle; Jewellery and Bags
which she can
dispose of and take care of her legal fees.
In
my view the claim for payment of legal costs is not justified and
should be refused.
Arrears
in terms of the Interim Order dated 05 December 2019
33.
It is common cause that an interim order
was granted on 05 December 2020 in terms of which the Respondent was
ordered to pay R15 000,
00 per child per month. It is also
common cause that the Respondent failed to comply with this order.
The Applicant avers that
the Respondent is not bona fide when he
tells the court that he cannot afford to pay as ordered because he
agreed to pay the amount
ordered by the court in the Interim Order.
The Respondent submitted that the interim order was not granted by
agreement but the
Respondent made a tender which he encapsulated in
his court papers. He avers that the court did not conduct an inquiry
to determine
if he could afford it.
34.
Regarding his failure to pay in terms of
the court order the Respondent submits that he was without income
from Nov 2019 to March
2020 and could not afford to comply with the
order. He however made payments between February 2020 and May 2020
totalling an amount
of R60 000, 00.
He
was only able to earn a reduced income to the value of R81 000,
disposable income. It was submitted that the Respondent
did his
utmost to comply with the interim order and he has always been
willing to maintain his children.
35.
The Respondent’s argument that the
interim order was not by agreement but was granted after he had made
a tender for the amounts
ultimately ordered does not make sense. The
Respondent wants to give an impression that the court did not
consider his financial
position before granting the order in the
interim. It is however surprising that he would make such a
submission because he is
the one who tendered those amounts and gave
the court the impression that he would afford to pay. How can he
tender to pay a certain
amount and then turn around and say the court
did not conduct an inquiry? If his tender was accepted as it happened
in the matter
on 5 December 2019, the court was not compelled to
conduct an inquiry. If the Respondent was able to tender the amount
he must
have, on his own without the court’s interference been
able to determine from his expenditures and liabilities that he could
afford it. I am inclined to agree with the Applicant that the
Respondent is not bona fide, he is actually clutching on straws.
My
view is that he is not bona fide because he states that in November
some companies were already terminating their contracts
with his
company but in December he makes an offer of R15 000, 00 per
child per month well knowing the circumstances of his
company and
well aware that he could not honour his own tender. He started
defaulting on the order in the same month as the order
was granted
showing that he actually never intended to pay the amount he offered.
36.
The Respondent on his own, started paying
R5 000, 00 per child without approaching the court for a variation of
the order as his
financial position had changed. The Applicant had
expected an amount of R30 000, 00 per month by only received
R20 000,
00 short as and when the Respondent decided to pay. He
only paid a total of R60 000, 00 and owes an amount of R155 000,
00 at the end of July 2020. This is money owing to the Applicant
which she had to make means to replace in order to get by whenever
the Respondent defaulted. The Applicant has made out a case for the
payment of the arrear amount in terms of the court order granted
on 5
December 2019. The Respondent also has disposable assets he can sell
like the Boat and 2 Jet Ski’s to settle the arrear
amount of
R155 000. 00.
37.
In the premises I make the following order:
37.1.
That full rights and responsibilities are
retained by both parties as set out in Section 18 (2) (a), (b) and 18
(3) read together
with Section 30 of the Children’s Act 38 of
2005, subject thereto that the specific rights and responsibilities
of primary
residence and care be awarded to the Applicant, further
subject to the Respondent’s specific rights and
responsibilities
in respect of contact with the minor children will
be awarded as follows:
37.1.1.
Contact with the minor children on every
alternate weekend from 17h00 on Friday to 17h00 on Sunday.
37.1.2.
Contact every alternate public holiday that
does not form part of the long weekend or school holiday;
37.1.3.
Contact every 5 days between the parties
during the school holidays for the duration of the holiday;
37.1.4.
Contact on either minor child’s
birthday for a period of 3 hours on their respective birthdays or a
day closest thereto;
37.1.5.
Each party will have daily reasonable,
unmonitored, telephonic contact via other electronic media, including
Skype, Facebook, WhatsApp,
and similar electronic communication
platforms with the minor children until 18h00 when the children are
under the other party’s
care.
37.1.6.
Contact will be exercised in such a manner
that will least encroach on the minor children’s school, extra
mural, religious,
social and cultural activities. Both parties will
ensure that the minor children shall attend their individual extra
mural social
and cultural activities in which they might be involved
in whilst they are in the care of the other party;
37.1.7.
Each party will monitor the minor children
whilst in their care, when they use electronic devices including but
not limited to cell
phones; tablets; television; video games and
computer games and will ensure that the minor children do not spend
more than 2 hours
per day using such devices;
37.1.8.
Each party, when the minor children are
under their care, shall first obtain permission from the other party
before leaving the
province, further thereto, should the National
State of Disaster continue for the duration of this order, both
parties shall abide
by the Covid-19 regulations promulgated in terms
of the
Disaster Management Act 57 of 2002
specifically those relating
to the movement of persons between provinces and borders.
37.1.9.
The arrangement outlined above regarding
contact with the minor children will be in effect immediately upon
receipt of this order
by both parties.
37.1.10.
The issue regarding parental
responsibilities and rights is referred to the office of the Family
Advocate to investigate what is
in the best interests of the children
before the divorce matter goes to trial and if there are any issues
of concern before then,
either party may re-enrol the matter for
variation of the order in 3.7.1 above.
37.2
The parties will contribute towards the
minor children’s maintenance needs as follows:
37.2.1
The Respondent is ordered to pay
maintenance to the Applicant in the amount of R10 000. 00. per
child, per month, from 30 September
2020 and thereafter on or before
the last day of each succeeding month in a bank account of the
Applicant’s choice. The said
maintenance amount will escalate
annually at a rate equal to the Consumer Price Index as published by
the Department of Statistics
SA on the anniversary date of the
Rule
43
order being granted;
37.2.2
The Respondent is ordered to pay for the
minor children’s school fees, after school fees and school
holiday care fees, which
payment will be made directly to the service
providers.
37.2.3
The Respondent shall pay in full all
reasonably incurred medical expenditures not covered by the medical
aid which include, but
are not limited to, over the counter
medicines; doctor’s bills and prescribed medicine; provisions
for dentists; and Opthalmologist
for Kade. The Respondent shall
reimburse the Applicant for any such costs she incurred within seven
(7) days of receipt of the
invoice or receipt.
37.3.
The Respondent is ordered to pay
maintenance to the Applicant in the amount of R 20 000,00
per month towards the Applicant’s
living expenses from 30
September 2020 and thereafter on or before the last day of each
succeeding month into a bank account of
her choice. The said
maintenance amount will escalate annually at a rate equal to the
Consumer Price Index as published by the
Department of Statistics SA
on the anniversary date of the
Rule 43
order being granted;
37.4.
The Respondent is ordered to pay to the
Applicant arrear maintenance in the amount of R155 000, 00
together with
mora
interest thereon within sixty (60) days of this order;
37.5.
The Respondent is ordered to pay the costs
of this Application on the scale as between party and party
VUKEYA
AJ
Honourable
Acting Judge of the
High
Court: Gauteng Local
Division
Johannesburg
Date
of hearing:
06 August 2020
Date of
delivery:
15 September 2020
, by email and by uploading on caselines.
Appearance
for the Applicant:
Adv. Henry Cowley
Instructed
by:
Van Kaam Oberholster Attorneys
Appearance
for the Respondent:
Adv. Bernette Bergenthuin
Instructed
by:
Martin Henning Attorneys