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
>>
2022
>>
[2022] ZAGPJHC 238
|
|
T v T (33546/2020) [2022] ZAGPJHC 238 (15 February 2022)
SAFLII
Note:
Certain
personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been
redacted from this document in compliance with the law
and
SAFLII
Policy
(Inlexso Innovative Legal
Services) of
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION,
JOHANNESBURG
CASE
NO
: 33546/2020
DATE
:
2022-02-15
REPORTABLE:
NO
OF
INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES : NO
REVISED
In
the matter between
T[....]:
H[....]
A[....]
Applicant
and
T[....]:
D[....]
B[....]
Defendant
J
U D G M E N T
WEPENER
,
J
: This is an application brought by the applicant pursuant to
the Rules and in particular Rule 43. During the course of last year,
when it commenced, the matter came before Wilson AJ. At that
time the learned judge was not satisfied with the evidence placed
before the Court in relation to a claim for maintenance and issued an
order that the applicant may file a further affidavit to
deal with
the financial needs of the minor children and that the respondent may
respond to that affidavit. Wilson AJ dismissed
the applicant’s
claim for a contribution towards cost as he found that “both
parties are people of considerable means”.
And that neither
party was in need of financial support from the other party pending
the divorce. Wilson AJ reserved the question
of costs.
The parties filed further
affidavits. The applicant filed affidavit setting out various
expenses including such as a hotel cost
for a family dog when she and
the minor children intend going on holidays five times a year. I
refer to this to show the extent
of the lavish if not outrageous
claims made by the applicant against the respondent. An analysis of
the detailed claims leaves
one with a clear impression that every
possible step has been taken to claim such a high amount as is
possible albeit in my view
wholly unreasonable.
There is, however, a
serious flaw in the application. The respondent avers that the
applicant withdrew and withdraws huge amounts
from a company in South
Africa which amounts are transferred to a trust of which the
applicant and the minor children are the beneficiaries.
The
applicant’s, supplementary affidavit annexes a letter by her
attorney which explains it thus: she transferred the funds
from the
company to the trust and from the latter to the applicant’s
personal account. There is consequently no dispute regarding
the
applicant’s conduct in this regard. The respondent pointed this
out and during argument. Ms Killops on behalf of
the applicant
complained that the applicant did not have the opportunity to deal
with the respondent’s version. But there
is no merit in this
complaint. The applicant’s own version was to set out, the
facts and in relation to the transfer of the
funds from South Africa
to the trust and ultimately to her. It is not correct that the
applicant did not have the opportunity to
deal with this point which
she introduced into the papers. In fact, the respondent made his
assertion in his initial and answering
affidavit prior to the
applicant filing her supplementary affidavit.
On the facts and the
papers before me, the applicant appears to take money from the
company in which the parties are directors and
that she now wants the
respondent to pay huge amounts in addition thereto. This cannot be
countenanced. In these circumstances,
I find that the applicant’s
application falls to be dismissed with costs. The applicant is also
to pay the costs reserved
by Wilson AJ.
…………………………
..
WEPENER,
J
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT
DATE
:
…………………