M.C D.C.R v A.P.W.R (2024/075727) [2025] ZAGPJHC 307 (19 March 2025)

R: M.C. D.C.
and
R: A. P. W.
PRETORIUS AJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG 1
CASE NO: 2024/075727
Applicant
Respondent
JUDGMENT

2
INTRODUCTION
[1] This is the reserved judgment in respect of an application brought in terms of
the provisions of Rule 43(1 )(a) and 43(1 )(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court, and
wherein the Applicant , who is the wife, is seeking an order for spousal
maintenance pendente lite, with retrospective effect from 01 December 2024, for
a contribution towards her costs in respect of the pending divorce action, in the
sum of R1 ,900,000.00, and for an order that the Respondent pay the costs of
the Rule 43 application on the scale as between attorney and client, on Scale
C, as provided for in Uniform Rule of Court 69.1
[2] Whilst it is common cause that the Respondent has tendered to continue
making payment of most of the direct expenses historically paid for by him, the
quantum and extent of the interim maintenance to be paid is in dispute, as is
the Applicant's claim for a contribution to costs, with the Respondent denying
that the Applicant is entitled to any contribution towards costs at all.2 Equally,
the aspect of who is to be liable for the costs of this Rule 43 application, is in
dispute.
[3] The Respondent served and filed his Sworn Reply3 out of time, on 21 December
2024.4 The Respondent has sought condonation in his Sworn Reply for the late
filing thereof.5 No issue was raised in regard to the condonation at the hearing
of the matter and the respective Counsel proceeded to argue the matter before
me. To the extent, however, that same may be required, the late filing of the
Respondent's Sworn Reply is condoned.
1 Notice in terms of Uniform Rule 43: prayers 1 (inclusive of the subparagraphs thereto) and 4,
Caselines 007-2 to 007-6
2 Sworn Reply: par 241, Caselines 007-146
3 This is described as "Respondent's Answering Affidavit". I will, however, refer thereto as the Sworn
Reply in accordance with the terminology referred to in Uniform Rule of Court 43
4 Filing Sheet: Caselines 007-88 to 007-91, read with Sworn Reply: paras 5 to 15, Caselines 007-94
to 007-96
5 Sworn Reply: paras 5 to 15, Caselines 007-94 to 007-96
3
[4] Given that this judgment contains references to the parties' personal and
financial information I have, in the interests of protecting such information,
redacted the parties' full names in the heading of this judgment.
SYNOPSIS OF RELEVANT FACTUAL MATRIX PERTINENT TO THE
APPLICATION
[5] The parties were married to one another on 26 February 1999, out of community
of property, with the application of the accrual system.6
[6] There are two children ("the clzildren") born of the marriage between the parties,
a son and a daughter, both of whom have attained the age of majority, and who
are presently aged 22 and 20 respectively.7 The clzildren do not reside with the
either of the parties and are students, with the son studying locally and the
daughter studying in New Zealand.8 The children are not self-supporting and
are supported fully by the Respondent9 The children left the former matrimonial
home in and during 2023.10 The Applicant pertinently states that the childre11 do
not form the subject matter of her application, 11 and the Applicant does not deal
with tlze children's maintenance requirements in her application.
[7] The Applicant avers that she has been a stay-at-home mother and wife for the
majority of the marriage and that she had fulfilled this role for 20 years, from
2002 to 2023 .12 The Applicant re-entered the job market, as it were, since
approximately November 2023, as a freelance tour guide, operating as a sole
trader.13
6 Sworn Statement: par 7, Caselines 007-10; Sworn Reply: par 19, Caselines 007-104 and par 50,
Caselines 007-111
7 Sworn Statement: par 9, Caselines 007-11; Sworn Reply: paras 20, 20.1 and 20.1, Caselines 007-
104 and par 55, Caselines 007-111
8 Sworn Statement: par 9, Caselines 007-11; Sworn Reply: paras 31 and 32, Caselines 007-106
9 Sworn Reply: par 32, Caselines 007-106 and par 56, Caselines 007-111; Respondent's FDF: par
3, Schedule of maintenance requirements, Caselines 007-348 to 007-352, par 4.1.2, Caselines 007-
353, par 4.3, Caselines 007-353 to 007-354
10 Sworn Reply: par 39, Caselines 007-108
11 Sworn Statement: par 9, Caselines 007-11
12 Sworn Statement: par 32, Caselines 007-23; Sworn Reply: paras 190 and 191, Caselines 007-137
13 Sworn Statement: par 35, Caselines 007-24, Applicant's FDF: par 2.15, Caselines 007-187 and par
2.9, Caselines 007-181
4
[8] The Respondent is an aircraft pilot and Captain.14 The Respondent left South
Africa in 2006 to pursue his career with various airlines.15 Since 11 September
2007, the Respondent has been in the employ of Qatar Airlines, taking up
residence in Qatar, the Middle East, in 2007, and where he has been residing
since.16
[9] The parties are estranged from one another.17 The Respondent avers that the
parties have effectively been separated for more than 20 years and that their
relationship came to an end during 2004, when they elected to start sleeping in
separate bedrooms.18 The Respondent states that in his mind, he and the
Applicant were separated since such time and only went on holidays with the
children "to save face and try and appease them", albeit that the children actually
knew that the relationship between the parties was over.19
[1 O] The Applicant avers that, notwithstanding the Respondent's taking up of
residence in Qatar since 2007, the parties continued with the marriage and
conducted themselves as husband and wife until at least 2023,20 being when,
as stated above, the children left the matrimonial home. The Applicant has
continued to reside in the matrimonial home, which is situated in Lonehill,
Sandton.21 The Applicant lives alone in the matrimonial home, with the family
pets, presently 6 dogs. The children visit her from time to time.22
[11] The Respondent, as Plaintiff, instituted divorce proceedings against the
Applicant, as Defendant, in and during July 2024.23 Needless to say, the divorce
14 Sworn Statement: par 3, Caselines 007-9; Sworn Reply: par 47, Caselines 007-110
15 Sworn Reply: paras 22 and 23, Caselines 007-104 to 007-105, par 52, Caselines 007-111
16 Sworn Reply: par 22, Caselines 007-104, read with par 51, Caselines 007-111
17 Sworn Statement: par 3.2, Caselines 007-9; Sworn Reply: par 47, Caselines 007-110
18 Sworn Reply: paras 21 and 33, Caselines 007-104 and 007-106
19 Sworn Reply: par 53, Caselines 007-111
20 Sworn Statement: par 8, Caselines 007-11
21 Sworn Statement: par 2.3, Caselines 007-9; Sworn Reply: paras 44 and 45, Caselines 007-109 to
007-110
22 Sworn Reply: par 45, Caselines 007-110; Sworn Statement: Annexure "MR2" thereto, Caselines
007-42
23 Pleadings: Caselines 001-1 to 001-3; Sworn Statement: par11, Caselines 007-11; Sworn Reply: par
60, Caselines 007-112
5
proceedings are contested and the pleadings therein have closed.24 The issues
in dispute in the divorce proceedings include the accrual, the Applicant's claim
for spousal maintenance until her death or re-marriage, whichever is the
sooner, and the costs of the divorce action.25
CLAIM FOR INTERIM MAINTENANCE IN TERMS OF RULE 43(1)(a}
Catalyst for this application
(12] The Applicant says that the Respondent has, throughout the marriage, been
the primary, if not sole, breadwinner and that the Respondent has maintained
her "virtually in toto."26 The Applicant details the extent of the Respondent's
support in her Sworn Statement and describes same as "the marital maintenanc e
agreement ". 27
(13] Whilst the Respondent, on the one hand, denies the existence of the alleged
marital maintenance agreement,28 on the other hand, the Respondent states
that: "even though we were separated since 2006, I wholeheartedly continued to
support the Applicant and her demands."29
[14] It was submitted on behalf of the Applicant that the facts in this application follow
a pattern often seen in Rule 43 applications where the Applicant did not work
for most of the marriage and was maintained by the Respondent who was the
primary, if not sole breadwinner. After instituting the divorce action, the
Respondent starts to reduce the financial support historically provided to the
Applicant, resulting in the Applicant having to institute a Rule 43 application.30
24 The Respondent, as Plaintiff, filed his Plea to the Applicant, as Defendant's, Counterclaim, on 08
October 2024. Caselines: 001-40; Sworn Statement: par 1,9, Caselines 007-14; Sworn Reply: par 71,
Caselines 007-114
25 Pleadings: Caselines 001-1 to 001-44
26 Sworn Statement: par 21, Caselines 007 -14
27 Sworn Statement: par 22, inclusive of subparagraphs , Caselines 007-14 to 007-16
28 Sworn Reply: par 178, Caselines 007-130
29 Sworn Reply: par 36, Caselines 007-107
30 Applicants Heads of Argument: par 7, Caselines 0070-4
6
[15] As stated above, the divorce action was instituted in July 2024. The Respondent
defended the action, filing her Notice to Defend on 06August 2024 and delivered
her Plea and Counterclaim, on 16 September 2024.31
[16] According to the Applicant, since the beginning of September 2024, the
Respondent refused to settle the amount outstanding in respect of the
Applicant's credit card and which he historically used to pay for by the 10th of
every month,32 said amount, as at the date of the Applicant deposing to her
Sworn Statement, being the sum of R49,707.87.33 In addition, on or about 01
November 2024, the Respondent implemented a "new regime" in line with his
tender and in terms whereof he paid to the domestic worker her salary directly
and paid to the Applicant the sum of R15, 000.00.34
[17] The Applicant states that the Respondent has therefore drastically reduced, by
at least half, the level of maintenance that he provided to the Applicant prior to
her filing a Notice of Intention to Defend the divorce proceedings and her Plea
and Counterclaim thereto, as the expenses which the Respondent used to pay
in regard to the Applicant's credit card would historically amount to
approximately R30, 000.00 per month.35
[18] The Applicant further avers that, by virtue of the Respondent neglecting to
tender payment of a significant number of other expenses, whether directly to
the relevant creditors or otherwise, and which the Respondent historically paid
for, this leaves the Applicant to make payment of such expenses herself from
the amount of R15,000.00, as tendered by the Respondent.36 The Applicant
avers that this is not only financially unsustainable for her but that it is also
telling of the attitude of the Respondent.37
31 Pleadings : Caselines 002-4 to 002-6 and 001-23 to 001-39
32 Sworn Statement: par 22.2, Caselines 007-15
33 Sworn Statement: par 25, Caselines 007-21
34 Sworn Statement: par 28, Caselines 007-22
35 Sworn Statement: paras 27.1 and 29, Caselines 007-22 to 007-23
36 Sworn Statement: par 27.2, Caselines 007-22
37 Sworn Statement: par 29, Caselines 007-22 to 007-23
7
[19) It was submitted by the Applicant's Counsel38 that the Respondent has not
alleged any change in his circumstances to show that his income has reduced,39
in justification of his unilateral reduction in the level of maintenance he provided
to the Applicant prior to her defending the divorce proceedings.4° From the
facts before me, as contained in the Sworn Statement, the Sworn Reply as well
as in the FDFs filed on behalf the parties, I am in agreement with the
submission. The Applicant alleges that this conduct on the part of the
Respondent is malicious and unreasonable,41 and in the absence of any
change in the Respondent's circumstances, this does suggest an element of
malice on the part of the Respondent.42 I am inclined to agree. The
Respondent denies that there is any malice on his part. 43.
The Respondent 's Tender
(20) It is common cause that, in respect of certain of the Applicant's claims for
maintenance pendente lite, the Respondent has tendered to continue making
payment in regard to certain of such expenses, pending the finalisation of the
divorce proceedings.44
[21) The Respondent's tender appears to have evolved, with slight nuances thereto,
from the initial tender contained in his Sworn Reply,45 to the Respondent's
proposed Draft Order, filed on 20 February 2025,46 and to the Respondent's
Comparative Table, filed on 25 February 2025, being the day preceding the
allocated date for the hearing of this matter.47 Certain of the tenders made by
38 Applicant's Heads of Argument: par 11.1, 0070-5 and as amplified during oral submissions at the
hearing of the matter
39 Applicant's Heads of Argument: par 11.1, Caselines 0070-5
40 Applicant's Heads of Argument: par 11.2, 0070-5 to 0070-6, and as amplified during oral submissions
at the hearing of the matter
41 Sworn Statement: heading [G], read with par 24, Caselines 007-20
42 Applicant's Heads of Argument: par 11.2, 0070-5 to 0070-6
43 Sworn Reply: par 177, Caselines 007-130
44 Sworn Reply: paras 17 and 18, Caselines 007-97 to 007-103; Respondent's Draft Order: Caselines
007C-15 to 007C-21; Respondent's Practice Note: Comparative Table, Caselines 0078-16 to 0078-
21; Applicant's Practice Note: annexure "A" thereto, being Applicant's Comparative Table, Caselines
0078-6 to 0078-11, Applicant's Heads of Argument: par 13 and the Table therein contained, Caselines
0070-6 to 0070-13
45 Sworn Reply: paras 17 and 18, Caselines 007-97 to 007-103
46 Respondent's Draft Order: Caselines 007C-15 to 007C-21
47 Respondent's Comparative Table: Caselines 0078-16 to 0078-21
8
the Respondent are not accepted by the Applicant and these issues thus remain
in dispute between the parties.48
[22] To the extent, therefore, where there is no disparity between the relief sought
by the Applicant , on the one hand, and the tender made by the Respondent in
regard thereto, on the other hand, these items are accepted as not being in
dispute between the parties and will be reflected accordingly as such in the
order to be made herein.
[23) The items which are thus not in dispute between the parties are reflected in the
following table:
NO. EXPENSE
23.1. the Applicant is to continue to reside and enjoy full and undisturbed
use of the matrimonial home situated in Lonehill, Sandton.49
23.2. the Respondent is to continue paying the costs of water and
electricity consumption, rates, taxes, refuse, and sewage in respect
of the matrimonial home. 50 (The only area of dispute in this regard is
that the Applicant wants the Respondent to pay her directly in regard to
these expenses whereas the Respondent wishes to pay the service providers
directly. I can see no reason why the Respondent should not pay the service
providers directly and this will be reflected in the order made herein).
23.3. the Respondent is to continue paying the armed response
subscriptions. 51
48 Sworn Reply: paras 17 and 18, Caselines 007-97 to 007-103; Respondent's Practice Note:
Comparative Table, Caselines 007B-16 to 0078-21; Applicant's Practice Note: annexure "A" thereto,
Applicant's Comparative Table, Caselines 0078-6 to 0078-11, Applicant's Heads of Argument: par 13
and the Table therein contained, Caselines 007D-6 to 007D-13
49 Respondent's Practice Note: Comparative Table, Caselines 007B-20 to 0078-21; Respondent's draft
Order: prayer 2, Caselines 007C-17
50 Notice in terms of Rule 43: prayer 1.1, Caselines 007-2 to 007-3; Sworn Reply: par 17, including
table therein, Caselines 007-92; to 007-98 Respondent's draft Order: prayer 3 (inclusive of prayers 3.1
to 3.4), Caselines 007C-17; Respondent's Practice Note: Comparative Table, Caselines 0078-16
51 Notice in terms of Rule 43: prayer 1.2.1.2, Caselines 007-3; Sworn Reply: Caselines 007-98;
Respondent 's draft Order: prayer 3.7, Caselines 007C-17; Respondent's Practice Note, Comparative
Table, Caselines 0078-17
NO.
23.4.
23.5.
23.6.
23.7.
23.8. 9
EXPENSE
the Respondent is to continue paying the household and/or
Homeowners' insurance premiums.52
the Respondent is to continue paying the internet subscriptions (for
purposes of this Judgment it is assumed that the Internet subscription is the
same as the fibre as no issue in this regard was made by either of the parties
at the hearing of the matter).53
the Respondent is to continue paying the salary of the domestic
worker employed at the matrimonial home, being Ms Elisa Madiba,
in the sum of R5,000.00 per month.54
the Respondent is to continue maintaining the Applicant's
membership as a dependent of the medical aid scheme of which the
Respondent is the main member, and to pay the monthly premiums
in respect thereof.55
the Respondent is to pay for any excess and/or non-recoverable
medical expenses incurred by the Applicant which are not covered,
refunded and/or discharged by the Respondent's medical aid
scheme, the incurring of such expenses to be agreed beforehand,
save in the event of an emergency, and excluding any cosmetic or
aesthetic surgeries56 (albeit that the Applicant seeks for the Respondent to
pay any excesses not covered by the Respondent's medical aid, the Respondent
has limited these excesses to exclude co-payments relating to any cosmetic or
aesthetic surgeries. There is nothing before me to suggest that the Applicant has
in the past had, or that she requires, any of the afore going procedures and hence
I am satisfied that the limitations in regard to excesses in the Respondent's tender
52 Notice in terms of Rule 43: prayer 1.2.1.3, Caselines 007-3; Sworn Reply: Caselines 007-98;
Respondent's draft Order: prayer 3.6, Caselines 007C-17; Respondent's Practice Note: Comparative
Table, Caselines 0078-17
53 Notice in terms of Rule 43: prayer 1.2.1 .4, Caselines 007-3; Sworn Reply: Caselines 007-98;
Respondent's draft Order: prayer 3.8, Caselines 007C-17; Respondent's Practice Note: Comparative
Table, Caselines 0078-17
54 Notice in terms of Rule 43: prayer 1.2.1.5, Caselines 007-3; Sworn Reply: par 17, including table
therein, Caselines 007-98; Respondent's draft Order: prayer 3.5, Caselines 007C-17; Responde nt's
Practice Note: Comparative Table, Caselines 0078-17
55 Notice in terms of Rule 43: prayer 1.2.4, Caselines 007-4; Sworn Reply: par 17, including table
therein, Caselines 007-100; Respondent's draft Order: prayer 4.5, Caselines 007C-18; Respondent's
Practice Note: Comparative Table, Caselines 0078-18;
56 Notice in terms of Rule 43: prayer 1.3.3, Caselines 007-5; Sworn Reply: par 17, including table
therein, Caselines 007-101; Respondent's draft Order: prayer4.6, Caselines 007C-18; Respondent's
Practice Note: Comparative Table, Caselines 0078-19
NO.
23.9.
23.10.
23.11. 10
EXPENSE
in regard to excess expenditure not covered by his medical aid is reasonable in
the circumstances and will be reflected accordingly in the order to be made
herein).
the Respondent is to continue paying the annual fees in regard to
TV licences.57
Applicant's gym membership58 (Initially the Respondent made no tender in
respect of the Applicant's gym membership, stating that she should pay for same
herself. The Respondent further stated that in light thereof that the Applicant's
gym membership is deducted by way of a debit order from his account on a
monthly basis, that he would deduct the amount of the debit order being Rl,180.00
from the cash portion of Rl 5,000.00 he has tendered to pay the Applicant. 59 In the
Respondent 's draft Order and Comparative Table filed alongside the
Respondent's Practice Note, the Respondent, however, has tendered to pay the
Applicant's gym membership in the sum of Rl,370.00 per month.60 It appears
that the cost of the Applicant's gym membership has increased from the amount
initially claimed by the Applicant in the sum of Rl,180.00 to Rl,370.00. This will
be reflected in the Order to be made herein.
The Respondent to continue paying for all costs which are
associated with the major dependent children.61 (Albeit that the
Applicant is not making any claim in regard to expenses for the cl,ildre1t,
it is common cause that the Respondent pays all expenses for the childre11
and that the Respondent has undertaken to continue paying for all costs
which are associated with the major dependent children.62 I include this
aspect in the table in regard to matters which are not in dispute between
the parties given that in law, both parents have a duty to support their
children in accordance with the childre11 's needs and in accordance with
the respective means of the parties. A Court dealing with an application in
57 Notice in terms of Rule 43: prayer 1.3.1.3, Caselines 007-4; Sworn Reply: par 17, including table
therein, Caselines 007-101; Respondent's draft Order: prayer 4.4, Caselines 007C-18; Respondent's
Practice Note: Comparativ e Table, Caselines 007B-19
58 Notice in terms of Rule 43: prayer 1.2.3, Caselines 007-4; Respondent's draft Order: prayer 4.1,
Caselines 007C-18; Respondent's Practice Note: Comparative Table, Caselines 007B-18
59 Sworn Reply: par 17, including table therein, Caselines 007-100 and Caselines 007-102
60 Respondent's draft Order: prayer 4.1, Caselines 007C-18; Respondent's Practice Note:
Comparative Table, Caselines 007B-18
61 Respondent's draft Order: par 5.2, Caselines 007C-19
62 Respondent 's draft Order: prayer 5.2 (inclusive of all sub-sub-paragraphs thereto), Caselines 007C-
19; Respondent's Practice Note: Comparative Table, Caselines 007B-21
11
NO. EXPENSE
terms of Rule 43(1)(a) should be satisfied that major children who are still
financially dependent are properly provided for. 63 In light of the
afore going, and further given the Respondent 's tender to continue
maintaining the cl,i/dre11, it is my respectful view that such undertaking by
the Respondent is to be incorporated in any Order I make in this matter
and as proposed in the draft Order of the Respondent.
The issues remaining in dispute in respect of claim for interim maintenance
[24] The issues which therefore remain in dispute between the parties insofar as the
Applicant's claim for maintenance , pendente lite, is concerned, are summarised
in the below table, and I will deal with, and make a determination in regard
thereto, further below in this Judgment:-
NO. EXPENSE
24.1. The account for the landline at the matrimonial home.64
24.2. DSTV subscriptions.65
24.3. any excesses relating to any claims in respect of the household
and/or homeowners' insurances.66
24.4. Bonuses, overtime, medical expenses and/or other charges
associated with the domestic worker,67 and which the Applicant
quantifies as being in the amount of R1 ,000.00 per month.68
24.5. The remuneration, bonuses and overtime in respect of the
gardener/handyman/driver and general helper employed at the
63 AF v MF: 2019 (6) SA 422 (WCC), at 438 G
64 Notice in terms of Rule 43: prayer 1.1, Caselines 007-2 to 007-3; Sworn Reply: par 17, including
table therein, Caselines 007-98
65 Notice in terms of Rule 43: prayer 1.2.1, Caselines 007-3; Sworn Reply: par 17, including table
therein, Caselines 007-98
66 Notice in terms of Rule 43: prayer 1.2.1.3, Caselines 007-3; Sworn Reply: par 17, including table
therein, Caselines 007-98C; Respondent's draft Order: prayer 3.6, Caselines 007C-17; Respondent's
Practice Note: Comparative Table, Caselines 007B-17
67 Notice in terms of Rule 43: prayer 1.2.1.5, Caselines 007-3; Sworn Reply: par 17, including table
therein, Caselines 007-98 to 007-99;
68 Sworn Statement: Annexure "MR2n thereto, Caselines 007-39
12
NO. EXPENSE
matrimonial home,69 and which the Applicant quantifies as being
in the amount of R1 ,000.00 per month.70
24.6. ' The Applicant's claim in respect of the use of the BWM XS and
Mercedes Benz ML 350 motor vehicles driven by her, the
insurance, including any excesses in regard thereto, as well as
the Netstar and/or Tracker subscriptions.71
24.7. In relation to the BMW XS and Mercedes Benz motor vehicles,
the cost of licences, repairs, maintenance, tyre replacement and
services.72
24.8. In relation to the matrimonial home, the costs of the replacement
of any household furniture, appliances and/or other equipment,
with an item of a similar and/or comparative standard, model and
features selected by the Applicant together with the costs of any
repairs and maintenance required to the matrimonial home.73
24.9. Two return international, and two return local, business class
airline tickets to destinations of the Applicant's choice, at times
selected by the Applicant. 74
24.10. an annual holiday allowance to cater for the cost of, inter alia,
accommodation, transport, entertainment and general
subsistence whilst on holiday, in the amount of R250,000.00, the
first payment commencing within five days of the date of an
Order, and which amount shall escalate on the anniversary of the
date of the Order.75
69 Notice in terms of Rule 43: prayer 1.2.1.6, Caselines 007-3; Sworn Reply: par 17, including table
therein, Caselines 007-99
70 Sworn Statement: Annexure "MR2" thereto, Caselines 007-39
71 Notice in terms of Rule 43: prayer 1.2.2 (inclusive of sub-sub-paragraphs thereto), Caselines 007-4;
Sworn Reply: par 17, including table therein, Caselines 007-99 to 007-100
72 Notice in terms of Rule 43: prayer 1.3.2 (inclusive of the sub-sub-paragraphs thereto), Caselines
007-4 to 007-5; Sworn Reply: par 17, including table therein, Caselines 007-101
73 Notice in terms of Rule 43: prayer 1.3.1 (inclusive of the sub-sub-paragraphs thereto), Caselines
007-4; Sworn Reply: par 17, including table therein, Caselines 007-100
74 Notice in terms of Rule 43: prayer 1.3.4, Caselines 007-5; Sworn Reply: par 17, including table
therein, Caselines 007-101 to 007-102
75 Notice in terms of Rule 43: prayer 1.4.2, Caselines 007-5; Sworn Reply: par 17, including table
therein, Caselines 007-102
13
NO. EXPENSE
24.11. Payment of the sum of R30,500.00 per month, payable in
advance, on or before the first day of each and every month,
retrospectively with effect from OJ December 2024, subject to an
annual escalation.76
24.12. Payment of the sum of R49,707.87, within five days of the date
of the Order, alternatively by way of three equal instalments,
payable at intervals of one month, the first instalment being due
and payable within five days of the date of the Order77
Determination of issues in dispute in respect of Applicant's claim for interim
maintenance
[25] It is trite that an Applicant is entitled to reasonab le maintenance, pendente lite,
dependent upon:-
25.1. the marital standard of living of the parties;
25.2. the Applicant's actual and reasonable requirements; and
25.3. the capacity of the Respondent to meet such requirements .78
[26] It is further trite that the determination of each case is dependent upon the facts
and circumstances peculiar to that matter.79
[27] Maintenance under Rule 43(1 )(a) is intended to be interim and temporary in
nature and cannot be determined with the same degree of precision as would
76 Notice in terms of Rule 43, prayer 1.4.1, Caselines 007-5; Sworn Reply: Caselines 007-102
77 Notice in terms of Rule 43, prayer 1.4.3, Caselines 007-6; Sworn Reply: par 17, including table
therein, Caselines 007-102
78 Taute v Taute: 1974 (2) SA 675 (E), at 676 E; Botha v Botha: 2009 (3) SA 89 (W), at 105 C to 106 J;
J.K. v E.S.K [2024) 1 All SA 775 (WCC), at par [49]
79 Taute v Taute: 1974 (2) SA 675 (E)
14
be possible in a trial where detailed evidence is to be adduced.80 An order in
terms of Rule 43 is not meant to provide an interim meal ticket.81
[28) It is against the backdrop of the aforegoing principles that I shall deal with the
items in dispute in regard to the Applicant's claim for interim maintenance.
[29] Before I proceed to do deal with the remaining issues in dispute in regard to the
Applicant's claim for interim maintenance, it was submitted on behalf of the
Applicant that the very fact that the Respondent has made the tender, as
detailed above, in itself establishes and confirms that the Applicant has a need
for maintenance, it being only the quantum of such maintenance which is in
dispute and which requires to be determined. I am in agreement with this
submission as logic dictates that if the Applicant did not need maintenance, the
Respondent would not have tendered to continue maintaining her in the
respects in which he has, and as dealt with and detailed above.
[30) In dealing with the items in dispute and making a determination in regard
thereto, I have, in addition to the Sworn Statement and Sworn Reply, had regard
to the Financial Disclosure Forms ("FDFs"), as filed by the parties.
[31] The Applicant's FDF ("the Applicant's FDF') is dated 28 January 2025, i.e.
effectively two months after she deposed to her Sworn Statement in this
application. Tlte Applicant's FDF, and the annexures thereto, was filed
electronically on the Court Online platform on 20 February 2025.82
[32) The Respondent's FDF ("tlte Respondent's FDF') is dated 25 February 2025, i.e.
just over two months after the Respondent deposed to his Sworn Reply in this
application and was filed electronically on the Court Online platform at around
noon on the same date,83 with certain annexures to tlte Respondent's FDF only
80 Levin v Levin: 1962 (3) SA 330 (W), at 331 D; Taute v Taute: 1974 (2) SA 675 (E), at 676 C-D;
Grauman v Grauman: 1984 (3) SA 477 (W), at 479 F
81 Nilsson v Nilsson: 1984 (2) SA 294 (C), at 295 F
82 Applicant's FDF: Caselines 007-168 to 007-170, read with 007-201, 007-202, 007-204, 007-220,
007-247, 007-275, 007-304, 007-309, 007-311, 007-315, and 007-323
83 Respondent's FDF: Caselines 007-334, read with 007-356 and 007-148
15
being uploaded close to 23h00 on the evening preceding the allocated date of
hearing.84
[33] It is common cause that this application was enrolled on the Opposed Family
Court Roll for the week 24 February 2025 to 28 February 2025,85 and was
allocated for hearing by and before me on 26 February 2025. The Respondent's
FDF was uploaded to the Court Online platform the day before the hearing of
this matter, i.e. contrary to the provisions of the prevailing Practice Directive in
this Division. It is also noted in regard to the Respondent's FDF that the
Respondent has failed to annex all the supporting documentation as required
in terms of the FDF and, as such, has failed to make the full disclosure of his
financial affairs as required by the FDF. I will revert to this aspect later in this
Judgment.
[34] The Respondent's Counsel submitted during argument that the Applicant's FDF
was also filed late, having regard to the provisions of the prevailing Practice
Directive applicable thereto. During argument , the Respondent's Counsel also
submitted that certain of the Applicant's credit card statements , as annexed to
her FDF, were illegible, and questioned whether this was not purposefully so,
and on the basis that "statements don't lie". By extension of the same argument
in respect of the Respondent's failure to provide proper disclosure by providing
bank statements in respect of, for example, his HSBC bank account, I am at
liberty to conclude that the Respondent's non-disclosure of such information
appears to be deliberate and aligns with submissions made by the Applicant's
Counsel to the effect that the Respondent has adopted an approach of "catch
me if you can."86
84 Caselines: 007-401 to 007-409
85 Notice of Final Set Down: Caselines 007A-10 to 007A-11
86 Applicant's Heads of Argument: par 23, Caselines 0070-18; Applicant's FDF: par 4.2, Caselines
007-198
16
Standard Of Living
[35] The Applicant avers that the parties had an "exceptionally high"/ a "very high"
standard of living.87 According to the Respondent the parties experienced a
standard of living which was "comfortable but always aware of spending and try to
control/curb spending where possible ". 88
[36] As dealt with hereinabove, the Respondent left South Africa in 2006 and has
been living abroad since.
[37] In addition, the Respondent avers that once the children had left the matrimonial
home which, from the facts before me, appears to be in 2023, the Respondent
began explaining to the Applicant that he could not afford her demands and that
she did not have to reside in: "a massive 4-bedroomed home, by herself, as well as
have three vehicles in her possession for one person."89
[38] On the facts before me, and despite the Respondent's alleged protestations,
the Respondent , however, continued to fund the Applicant in the aforesaid
lifestyle and, to a large extent, based on what has been stated above, has
tendered to continue doing so, as this was clearly the standard of living of the
parties and this, the Respondent continued to do despite the children moving
out of the matrimonial home in and during 2023, and further despite the
Applicant re-entering the job market in November 2023.
[39] On the papers before me, and having heard argument, it is fair to say that the
standard of living enjoyed by the parties was more than the "comfortable"
standard of living which the Respondent wishes to portray and appears to have
been more in line with the Applicant's averments in regard to the parties'
standard of living of being "exceptionally high" to "very high".
87 Sworn Statement: par 23, Caselines 007-16
88 Respondent's FDF: par 4.2, Caselines 007-353
89 Sworn Reply: par 37, Case Lines 007-108
17
Parties' Respective Means
(40] As dealt with above, the Applicant avers that she has been a stay-at-home
mother and wife for the majority of the marriage and that after the parties'
marriage in 1999, and by agreement with the Respondent, she stopped all forms
of work some 3 years later, during 2002.90
[41] The Applicant states that with what the Applicant terms the onset of the
breakdown of the marriage in 2023, she decided to re-enter the travel industry
and to obtain freelance work as a tour guide.91 Since November 2023, the
Applicant states that she has obtained work as a tour guide and that she is an
independent contractor and that, as such, is reliant upon a tour operator to
award her certain contract work.92 The Applicant avers that she cannot predict
her income with any degree of certainty and that she cannot rely on such
income for purposes of discharging her reasonable maintenance
requirements.93
(42] Her net monthly income for the twelve month period preceding her deposing to
her Sworn Statement in support of this application, on 27 November 2024, was
the sum of R147,024.38,94 which equates to the sum of R12,252,03 per month.
(43) According to the Applicant's FDF, she receives a meal allowance in respect of
her operating as a freelance tour guide, which meal allowance has equated to
approximately R20,000.00 "in the same last 12 month period'.95 This equates to
R1 ,666.67 per month.
(44] In addition, the Applicant, in her FDF, declares that she earned approximately
R8,500.00 over the preceding 12 month period, said amount representing
90 Sworn Statement: par 32, Caselines 007-23
91 Sworn Statement: par 34, Caselines 007-24
92 Sworn Statement: paras 35 and 36, Caselines 007 -24
93 Sworn Statement: par 36, Caselines 007-24 to 007-35
94 Sworn Statement: par 35, Caselines 007-24, read with Caselines 007-36
95 Applicant's FDF: par 2.15, Caselines 007-186
18
income from her investments.96 The aforesaid income equates to R708.33 per
month.
[45] This therefore means that, taking the aforegoing income into account, as
detailed above, the Applicant, on her version, earns a total amount of
approximately R14, 627,03 per month. The Applicant states that her monthly
expenses, over and above the expenses paid for the by Respondent, amount
to R30,535.07.97 It is the Applicant's contention that, given the Respondent's
historic level of support of her and that she was never required to work and
meaningfully contribute to her own maintenance, it would be unfair to reduce
the extent of the Respondent 's contribution towards her maintenance, having
regard to her "hope of future income".98
[46] From tlteApplicant's FDF, and more specifically, her maintenance requirements
as detailed therein, and which differs slightly from those contained in annexure
"MR2" to her Sworn Statement,99 it appears that the Applicant has included
therein the following expenses:-
46.1. an amount of R1, 150.74, being in respect of the motor vehicle insurance
for the Hyundai motor vehicle, which it is common cause is reserved for
us by the partes' major daughter and which insurance is paid for by the
Respondent; and
46.2. an amount of R151.00 in regard to the Netstar tracking device pertaining
to the said Hyundai motor vehicle.100
(47] These two figures equate to R1 ,310.74 and must, in my view, be deducted from
the Applicant's total alleged expenditure of R30,535.07, making the total
expenditure R29,224.33. From this figure must further be deducted the
96 Applicant's FDF: par 2.16, Caselines 007-187 to 007-188
97 Sworn Statement: Annexure "MR 2" thereto, Caselines 007-39 to 007-42; In the Applicant's FDF this
figure is slightly less, being R35,415.07, Caselines 007-197
98 Sworn Statement: par 36, Case lines 007 -24 to 007 -35
99 Sworn Statement: Annexure "MR 2" thereto, Caselines 007-39 to 007-42
100 Applicant's FDF: par 3, more specifically 3.1 being the schedule of monthly expenditure,
Caselines 007-193 and 007-194
19
Applicant's monthly income in the sum of R14,627.03, which leaves a balance
of R14,597.30, which latter figure represents the applicant's approximate
monthly shortfall.
[48] According to the Applicant's FDF:
48.1. the total value of her personal assets is R162,370.61;101
48.2. the total value of her other assets is R5,676.53;102
48.3. the total value of her liabilities is zero.103 This is contrary to what is stated
in the Applicant's Sworn Statement where she alleges that her only
liability is the amount outstanding on her credit card which the
Respondent failed to discharge;104
48.4. the value of her assets, less her liabilities is the sum of R168,047.14.105
[49] Insofar as the Respondent's means are concerned, the Respondent, as dealt
with earlier in this judgment, is employed as a Captain with Qatar Airlines and
has been so employed since 2007. According to the Respondent, his monthly
salary is earned in the currency of Qatar, being the Qatari Riyal, the Rand value
of which obviously fluxuates depending on the exchange rate, from time to time.
The Respondent's salary in Qatari Riyal is QAR52,281.00 which, converted to
R282,968.14 per month, 106 as at the date of signature by the Respondent of his
Sworn Reply, being 21 December 2024,107
[50] In addition, having regard to the Respondent 's FDF, it appears that over and
above his monthly salary, the Respondent , in the 24 month period preceding
101 Applicant's FDF: C1 to C6, Caselines 007-180;
102 Applicant's FDF: F, Caselines 007-182 to 183
103 Applicant's FDF: G, Caselines 007-184
104 Sworn Statement: par 40, Caselines 007 -26
105 Applicant's FDF: par 2.19, Caselines 007-189
106 Sworn Reply: par 208, Caselines 007-141 read together with annexure "MS" thereto, Caselines
007-160
107 Sworn Reply: Caselines 007-148
20
his deposing to the FDF, received bonuses or other occasional payments from
his employer which were not reflected in his gross and/or net income in the total
sum of R316,407.03.108 This equates to an amount of R13,183,62 per month.
[51] Furthermore , and arising out of the Respondent's employment, he receives
certain perks or other remuneration such as travel payments , accommodation ,
and/or meal expenses which, according to the Respondent varies as per his
flight schedule , but which equates to approximately R12,629.61 per month.109
[52] According to my calculations , therefore, the Respondent's income from his
employment alone equates to R308,781.38 on a monthly basis. By extension,
when compared to the Applicant's income as dealt with hereinabove , this
translates to 21 times the Applicant's income.
[53] According to the Respondent's FDFwhich, as stated above, was filed on the eve
of the hearing of this Application, and in respect of which there are deficiencies
insofar as the provision of supporting documentation is concerned , the
Respondent declares his total monthly expenditure to be the sum of
R235,915.00, made up as follows:-
53.1. in respect of himself, R55,650.00;
53.2. in regard to the children, R149,740.00 ;
53.3. in regard to the Applicant, R30,525.00 (plus the expenses paid for by
him).110
[54] It further appears, however, from the Respo11dent's FDF, that there are additional
expenses , over and above the R235,915.00, the quantum of which expenses
have not been disclosed in his FDF, being loan repayments for medication in
respect of his son, ad hoc expenses for the children, the Applicant and himself
108 Respondent's FDF: Caselines 007-344
109 Respondent's FDF: par 2.3, Caselines 007-344
110 Respondent's FDF: Caselines 007-348 to 007-352
21
and the monthly premium for his son's medical aid.111 In the absence of any
further particularity in regard to these alleged additional expenses, it is of course
difficult for this Court to assess what the true position is, and further against the
backdrop of the Respondent's failure to provide the requisite supporting
documentation as required by the provisions of the FDF. Accordingly , these
alleged additional expenses will be not be taken into account.
[55] In the premise, and based on the figures as provided by the Respondent , on
his own version, he has a monthly surplus of at least R72,866.38.
[56] According to the Respondent's FDF:
56.1. the total value of his interest in the matrimonial home is
R6,000,000.00;112
56.2. the total value of his personal assets is R592, 159.50;113
56.3. the total value of his pension interest is R419,627 .24;114
56.4. the total value of his liabilities is R180,000.00.115 In this respect the
Respondent states that the amount is made up of an incrementa l loan
from Derma Africa, taken in 2024, for the major son's medication, in the
sum of R90,000.00 and a further similar loan, for the same amount, to
be taken in 2025;116
56.5. the total value of his assets less his liabilities is R6,831,426.74, "less
inheritance utilized above plus CPI thereon: (R5,408,385.09 ), being
R1 ,423,041.65.117 This aspect is not explained in the Respondent's FDF.
In his Sworn Reply, however, the Respondent states that he received an
111 Respondent's FDF: Caselines 007-352
112 Respondent's FDF: par 2.1, Caselines 007-337
113 Respondent's FDF: C1 to C6, Caselines 007-340;
114 Respondent's FDF: F, Caselines 007-342 to 007-343
115 Responden t's FDF: D, Caselines 007-341
116 Ibid
117 Respondent's FDF: par 219, Caselines 007-347 to 007-348
22
inheritance of R3,000,000.00 and that the amount was used to buy the
BMW motor vehicle currently in the Applicant's possession and to
support the Applicant's expenses.118 No proof of the aforegoing is
provided.
[57] It is further clear from the Respondent 's Sworn Reply, read together with the
Respolldent's FDF that:-
57.1. the Respondent is a Trustee/Beneficiary of a Trust, ostensibly an inter
vivos Trust;119
57.2. the Trust purchased , and owns, a light piston engine propeller aircraft;120
57 .3. the Trust is the 100% shareholder of a private profit company which
purchased, in and during 2022, a sizeable piece of land in Limpopo
Province for an amount of R14,000,000.00.121 According to the
Applicant the Respondent is constructing an exclusive and luxurious
game lodge on the aforesaid property;122
57.4. it is not clear from either the Respondent 's sworn Reply, or his FDF, what
precisely the Respondent's beneficial interest in regard to the Trust
and/or the private profit company owned by the Trust, is, and this would
be something that would need to be investigated further for the purposes
of the pending divorce proceedings , and more specifically, in relation to
the determination of the accrual. I will revert to this aspect further when
I deal with the Applicant's claim for a contribution towards her legal costs.
[58] Given that which has already been stated hereinabove in this judgment insofar
as the Respondent's means are concerned, I am satisfied that the Respondent
118 Sworn Reply: paras 238 and 239, Caselines 007-145
119 Respondent's FDF: par 2.2, Caselines 007-344
120 Sworn Reply: paras 105 to 107, Caselines 007-120
121 Sworn Reply: paras 213 and 214, Caselines 007-41; Sworn Statement: par 49, Caselines 007-28
122 Sworn Statement: par 49, Caselines 007-28
23
has the capacity to continue to contribute to the Applicant's maintenance
requirements, pendente lite, subject to what is stated herein below in this regard.
Applicant 's actual and reasonable requirements in so far as claim for a cash
contribution in relation to monthly expenses is concerned
[59] As stated above, the Applicant avers that her expenses, i.e. her expenses which
are not paid for by the Respondent , either directly or indirectly, amount to R30,
535.07 per month.123
[60) It is common cause that the Applicant is claiming in this application a cash
contribution from the Respondent in the sum of R30, 500.00. She states that
she requires this amount to fund the balance of her maintenance requirements
and seeks that the Respondent pays the same to her on a monthly basis,
subject to an annual escalation.124
[61] As dealt with above, the Applicant therefore wants this Court to ignore the
income she currently earns, together with any future income she may earn, for
purposes of any order to be made herein. I am not inclined to do so.
[62] Given that I have determined that the Applicant's actual expenses are
R29,224.33, and that her monthly shortfall is the sum of R14,597.30, I am
therefore respectfu lly of the view that the tender by the Respondent to pay the
sum of R15,000.00 per month as a cash contribution towards the Applicant is,
in the circumstances, reasonable, and will cover the Applicant's shortfall.
[63] The Applicant has claimed that the cash component must be subject to an
annual escalation in terms of the Consumer Price Index and I am satisfied that,
pending the finalisation of the divorce proceedings between the parties, such
123 Sworn Statement: par 31, Caselines 007-23, read together with annexure "MR2", Caselines 007-
39 to 007-42
124 Sworn Statement: par 31, Caselines 007-23, read together with Notice in terms of Rule 43: prayer
1.4.1, Caselines 007-5
24
escalation is reasonable and necessary and the Order I intend making herein
will take this into account.
Applicant's actual and reasonable requirements in so far as claims for
maintenance in regard to remaining issues in dispute is concerned
(64] In regard to the Applicant's claim that the Respondent continue paying the
account for the fixed landline at the matrimonial home, whilst the Respondent
has tendered to make payment in respect of this expense, he has only tendered
to do so up to and including April 2025.125 No reason is provided by the
Respondent for doing so and this cut-off date seems arbitrary and further
smacks of penny-pinching in the bigger scheme of this matter. It is my
respectful view that there is no basis for the Respondent to tender to only pay
the fixed landline costs up to and including April 2025 and that he should
continue to pay for the same, pendente lite, directly to the service provider
conc.erned. The order I make will be reflective hereof.
(65] It is common cause that the Respondent has tendered to pay the DSTV
subscriptions up to and including April 2025.126 The reason advanced by the
Respondent for this is that, according to him, there was a previous problem with
the DSTV which he had to sort out and which "locked him in for a further year"
which subscription ends in April 2025. Accordingly, it is the Respondent's view
that the Applicant should continue with the DSTV thereafter at her own
expense.127 In my view, for similar reasons expressed in regard to the expense
for the landline, the Respondent must continue to pay for this expense, pendente
lite, directly to the service provider concerned.
(66] In regard to the expense pertaining to any excesses relating to any claims in
respect of the household and/or homeowners' insurances, as stated above, the
125 Notice in terms of Rule 43: prayer 1.1, Caselines 007-2 to 007-3; Respondent's draft Order: prayer
4.8, Caselines 007C-18; Respondent's Practice Note: Comparative Table, Caselines 0078-16 to
0078-17
126 Notice in terms of Rule 43: prayer 1.2.1.1, Caselines 007-2 to 007-3; Sworn Reply: Caselines 007-
92; Respondent's draft Order: prayer 4.7, Caselines 007C-18; Respondent's Practice Note:
Comparative Table, Caselines 0078-17
127 Sworn Reply: Caselines 007-98
25
Respondent's tender evolved from what was initially stated in his Sworn Reply
to what was encapsulated in the Respondent's draft Order and the Comparative
Table associated with the Practice Note filed on behalf of the Respondent. In
the Respondent's Sworn Reply the Respondent did not draw a distinction
between the premiums, on the one hand, and the excesses on the other, and
stated that he will continue to pay these expenses directly.128 No reason is
provided by the Respondent for excluding the excesses in his final tender. In
my view, the Respondent should continue to be liable for this expense ,pendente
lite.
[67] In regard to the claim for bonuses, overtime, medical expenses and/or other
charges associated with the domestic worker,129 in the sum of R1 ,000.00 per
month, these expenses appear to be of an ad hoc and discretionary nature. The
Respondent refuses to pay any additional expenses in regard to the domestic
worker, other than her agreed monthly salary of RS, 000.00, which has been
tendered by him. The basis for his refusal is that the children are majors and
are studying elsewhere and do not frequent the matrimonial home often. Any
overtime which was previously paid to the domestic worker was when the
children were younger and when same would be paid in the event that the
Applicant needed extra assistance. The Respondent's view is that there is no
requirement for the domestic worker, in the circumstances, to even work full­
time, let alone overtime, as only the Applicant resides in the matrimonial home.
The Respondent view is that these further expenses should be for the
Applicant's account.130 I am persuaded by the aforegoing.
[68] The Applicant claims R1 ,000.00 per month for remuneration, bonuses and
overtime in respect of the gardener/handyman/driver and general helper ("the
gardener ") employed at the matrimonial home. 131 The Applicant provides no
proof of this expense and does not provide a breakdown and allocation of the
expense. Based on what is said below in relation to the vehicles, it seems that
128 Sworn Reply: Caselines 007-98
129 Notice in terms of Rule 43: prayer 1 .2.1.5, Caselines 007-3; Sworn Reply: Caselines 007-98 to
007-99;
130 Sworn Reply: Caselines 007-98 to 007-99
131 Notice in terms of Rule 43: prayer 1.2.1.6, Caselines 007-3; Sworn Reply: Caselines 007-99
26
the Applicant uses the gardener to take her to the airport when she travels and
to run errands for her. The Respondent makes no tender in respect of this
expense, averring that this expense is an "absolute fabricated claim" made by the
Applicant in that the gardener and the parties had a longstanding arrangement
to the effect that the gardener could reside at the matrimonial home, rent-free,
on the basis that he could work within the area and, on the weekends, assist
the parties with any extra garden work in lieu of paying rent 132 I agree that this
expense should be borne by the Applicant.
[69] In regard to the Applicant's claim in respect of the BWM X5 and Mercedes Benz
ML 350 motor vehicles driven by her, more specifically for the insurance,
including any excesses, and the Netstar and/or Tracker subscriptions in respect
of the vehicles, 133 the Respondent avers that the Applicant is in possession of
three motor vehicles, a BMW, a Mercedes Benz and a Hyundai i10, the latter
vehicle being the vehicle driven by the parties' major daughter when she is in
the country. The Respondent contends that it is unnecessary and excessive
for the Applicant to be in possession of three vehicles. The Respondent initially
tendered that the Applicant should return either the BMW or the Mercedes Benz
so that he can sell one and, in turn, continue to pay the insurance and Netstar,
on an interim basis, in regard to the vehicle which the Applicant elects to
retain.134 The Respondent's aforesaid tender changed in the Respondent's
proposed draft Order to the effect that the Applicant could retain the use and
enjoyment of the BMW motor vehicle, with the Respondent covering the costs
of insurance, Tracker and the annual licence fees in respect of the BMW.135
[70] In the Applicant's FDF, she admits that she has three vehicles in her
possession, confirming the position in regard to the Hyundai136 She states that
the BMW X5 is the vehicle she uses for everyday use. She does, however, use
the Mercedes regularly to transport pets (currently 6 dogs), take items to the
132 Sworn Reply: Caselines 007-99
133 Notice in terms of Rule 43: prayer 1.2.2 (inclusive of sub-sub-paragraphs thereto), Caselines 007-
4; Sworn Reply: Caselines 007-99 to 007-100
134 Sworn Reply: Caselines 007-99 to 007-100
135 Respondent's draft Order: prayers 4.2 and 4.3, Caselines 007C-18. This tender is echoed in the
Respondent's Practice Note Comparative Table: Caselines 007B-18
136 Applicant's FDF: par 3, being table of maintenance requirements, Caselines 007-192 to 007-193
27
rubbish dump, and for the gardener to transport the Applicant to the airport for
travel and to run various other errands as she says that the Mercedes is far less
reliable, being almost 20 years old, and suffers from leaks and overheating.137
[71] In the Respondent's FDF he states, in relation to the Applicant, without
quantifying the same, that he pays for the insurance, and the Netstar and/or
Tracker subscriptions in regard to the vehicles.138
[72] In relation to the Applicant's claim for the cost of licences, repairs, maintenance,
tyre replacement and services BMW XS and Mercedes Benz motor vehicles, 139
as stated above, the Respondent's tender evolved to the point where it is his
contention that the Applicant should remain in possession of only the BMW
motor vehicle and in respect of which vehicle the tender extends to the
insurance, Tracker, and annual licence fees for the BMW X5. The tender does
not extend to the remaining items claimed by the Applicant, 140 being repairs,
maintenance, tyre replacements and services. In the Applicant's FDF, she
states that: "recently, the Respondent refused to pay for the BMW to be serviced unless
I effectively halt the legal proceedings."141
[73] It is common cause that the Mercedes and BMW are older model vehicles which
have historically been used by the Applicant. In the Respondent 's FDF, he
states that he pays these vehicle-related expenses, presumably including the
Hyundai, and attributes the sum of R4,000.00 per month to this expense.142
[74] In the circumstances, my view is that the status quo in regard to the BMW XS
137 Ibid and Mercedes Benz vehicles should remain, pendente lite, and the order I make
will be reflective thereof.
138 Respondent's FDF: par 3, Caselines 007-349
139 Notice in terms of Rule 43: prayer 1.3.2 (inclusive of the sub-sub-paragraphs thereto), Caselines
007-4 to 007-5; Sworn Reply: Caselines 007-101
140 Respondent's draft Order: prayer 4.3, Caselines 007C-18; Respondent's Practice Note:
Comparative Table, Caselines 0078-18
141 Applicant's FDF: par 4.4, Caselines 007-199
142 Respondent's FDF: par 3.1, Caselines 007-349
28
[75] Regarding the claim for the costs of the replacement of any household furniture,
appliances and/or other equipment, with an item of a similar and/or comparative
standard, model and features selected by the Applicant together with the costs
of any repairs and maintenance required to the matrimonial home, 143 same is
disputed in toto by the Respondent. The Respondent states, in disputing this
expense, that he has contributed to the renovations of the matrimonial home
even though he has not resided there since 2006. He further states that he has
paid for a solar system and inverter and that the whole house has been
repainted and the external wall replaced. In the Respondent's view, all furniture
and household equipment is in good working order and he cannot see that
anything would require to be replaced. In the event, however, of something
requiring to be replaced, his view is that it should be at the expense of the
Applicant.144
[76] It is common cause that in the pending divorce proceedings, part of the relief
which is sought by the Applicant, in her Counterclaim, is that the Respondent
must pay her the sum of R1 ,500,000.00, alternatively certain periodical
payments, in order for the Applicant to acquire furniture, appliances and other
household effects.145
[77] I am thus not inclined to grant the claim for the replacement of household items,
pendente lite, as this aspect can be dealt with in the pending divorce proceedings
in due course. Insofar as repairs and maintenance to the matrimonial home are
concerned, I am of the view that any major issues in the interim would fall to be
covered by the household/homeowner's insurance, the premiums and
excesses in respect of which I have found the Respondent liable to pay,
pendente lite, and as such, I am also not inclined to grant this claim.
(78] The Applicant claims two return international, and two return local, business
class airline tickets to destinations of the Applicant's choice, at times selected
143 Notice in terms of Rule 43: prayer 1.3.1 (inclusive of the sub-sub-paragraphs thereto), Caselines
007-4; Sworn Reply: Caselines 007-100
144 Sworn Reply: Caselines 007-100
145 Sworn Statement: par 17.2.4, Caselines 007-13
29
by the Applicant.146 In my view, this claim does not fall within the purview of the
relief intended to be provided in the nature of interim maintenance in terms of
Rule 43. The Respondent avers that, by virtue of his employment with Qatar
Airways, each family member receives one free airline ticket per annum to
Doha, Qatar. The Respondent tenders such ticket to the Applicant, on an
interim basis, only for so long as the Respondent continues to be employed by
Qatar Airways, and within the parameters of what that free ticket entails and
when and how it comes about, on the proviso that the Applicant shall be solely
responsible for any additional traveling expenses exceeding the annual free
ticket as aforesaid.147 The order I make will accordingly reflect the terms of the
Respondent's tender.
[79] In regard to the Applicant's claim for an annual holiday allowance to cater for
the cost of, inter alia, accommodation, transport, entertainment and general
subsistence whilst on holiday, in the amount of R250, 000.00, 148 which amounts
to R20,833.33 per month, this claim is rejected outright by the Respondent as
being excessive, unreasonable and unaffordable.149 The difficulty with this
claim is that it is couched in broad terms, without any detail as to how the
amount is computed. There is no breakdown to assist the Court to consider
and evaluate this claim. In the scheme of the facts of this matter, and in light of
the relief intended to be provided by way of interim maintenance in terms of
Rule 43, I am not inclined to grant this relief.
[80] Regarding the Applicant's claim for payment of the sum of R49, 707.87, same
pertains to the dispute in regard to payment of the Applicant's credit card by the
Respondent and which the Applicant avers the Respondent stopped paying
with effect from September 2024. The amount represents the outstanding
balance on the Applicant's credit card as at the date of her deposing to her
Sworn Statement in regard to this Rule 43 Application, being 27 November
146 Notice in terms of Rule 43: prayer 1.3.4, Caselines 007-5; Sworn Reply: Caselines 007-101 to
007-102
147 Sworn Reply: Caselines 007-101 to 007-102
148 Notice in terms of Rule 43: prayer 1.4.2, Caselines 007-5
149 Sworn Reply: Caselines 007-102
30
2024.150 The Respondent rejects this claim outright and states that same should
be for the Applicant's own account, further stating that the Applicant has failed
to provide any statements for this credit card yet expects him to pay for same.151
(81] In her Sworn Statement, the Applicant states that her only liability is the amount
outstanding in respect of her credit card, as aforesaid.152 However, in the
Applicant's FDF, deposed to two months later, she declares that she has no
liabilities i.e. that she does not owe any money on credit cards.153 In the
Applicant's list of monthly expenditure, in both her Sworn Statement and her
FDF, she also does not budget for a monthly credit card repayment.154 I am
not inclined to grant the Applicant this relief as, in line with the decision of
Greenspan v Greenspan , the lumpsum claimed is in regard to interim
maintenance, with Rule 43(1 )(a) envisaging periodic payments in this regard,
the Court having no jurisdiction to award lumpsum payments in this respect.155
Retrospectivity of Applicant 's claim for interim maintenance
[82] The Applicant seeks an order that the Respondent be ordered to pay her claim
for interim maintenance with retrospective effect from OJ December 2024.156
[83) In light of my findings above, and further in light of the Respondent' s tender to
continue making payment of certain expenses directly, it being common cause
that the Respondent has been effecting payment of the sum of R15,000.00 per
month to the Applicant as a cash component with effect from November 2024, in
my mind there is no basis, in casu, on the facts and circumstances before me,
to justify the retrospective order, as sought by the Applicant.
150 Sworn Statement: par 25, Caselines 007-21
151 Sworn Reply: Caselines 007-102
152 Sworn Statement: par 40, Caselines 007-26
153Applicant's FDF: par 2.13, Caselines 007-184
154 Sworn Statement: Annexure "MR2" thereto, Caselines 007-39 to 007-42, Applicant's FDF: par 3,
Caselines 007-190 to 007-197
155 Greenspan v Greenspan: 2000 (2) SA 283 (C)
156 Notice in terms of Rule 43: prayer 1, Caselines 007-2
31
APPLICANT'S CLAIM FOR A CONTRIBUTION TO COSTS IN TERMS OF RULE
43(1)(b)
[84] The Applicant further alleges that she is unable to progress the divorce action,
(in re::.pect of which it is common cause, as stated above, that the pleadings have
closed), due to a lack of funds and hence she has launched the Rule 43
Application, with the Applicant verily believing that her defence to the
Respondent's claims in the divorce action and her Counterclaim thereto, have
reasonable prospects of success.157
[85] It is common cause that the Applicant is seeking a contribution towards her
legal costs in the sum of R1 ,900,000.00, and that the Respondent has disputed
such claim, stating that the Applicant should not be entitled to any contribution
whatsoever . The parties are therefore at polar opposites in regard to this claim.
(86] In regard to her claim, the Applicant states that:-
86.1. "thus far", presumably being up to the date she deposed to her Sworn
Statement in support of this application, being 27 November 2024, she has
managed to make payment of the legal costs that she has incurred from
her "relatively minimal earnings and/or savings";158
86.2. this is "clearly not sustainable";159
86.3. she requires a contribution towards her future legal costs;160
86.4. the issues in dispute in the pending divorce action are "numerous and
complex" and relate, inter alia, to the Applicant's claim that the
Respondent maintain her post the divorce, including relief ancillary to
such claim, being the provision of accommodation, furniture, appliances,
157 Sworn Statement: paras 19 and 20, Caselines 007-14
158 Sworn Statement: par 57, Caselines 007-31
159 Ibid
160 Ibid
32
and/or other household equipment and a motor vehicle, the
determination of the accrual of the parties' respective estates, and who
should be liable for the costs of the divorce action;161
86.5. having regard to the issues in dispute and "the respondent's unfortunate
attitude towards" the Applicant, "as gleaned from" the contents of the Sworn
Reply, she will unfortunately be required to engage in extensive litigation
at great cost, including consulting with counsel, attorneys and experts,
which experts include an industrial psychologist, an actuary, an
accountant/auditor , and an appraiser;162
[87] In support of her claim for a contribution to her future legal costs, the Applicant
has annexed to her Sworn Statement a Bill of Costs, which is headed:
"Memorandum of Estimated Future Legal Fees and Disbursements to be incurred by
the Applicant /Defendant , in the above-mentioned maller up to an including the first day
of trial, and due and payable to Steve MerchakAttorneysforpurposes of an assessment
of a Contribution towards Costs, 163 ("the Bill of Costs").
[88] The Bill of Costs was prepared by an attorney, Mr Ray Gertzen, who further
deposed to a Confirmatory Affidavit in regard to the Bill of Costs as prepared by
him relation to the Applicant's future legal costs.164 The grand total reflected on
the Bill of Costs, inclusive of fees, disbursements and VAT, is the sum of
R1 ,914,912.63.165
161 Sworn Statement: par 58, including the subparagraphs thereto, Caselines 007-31 to 007-32
162 Sworn Statement: par 59, including all subparagraphs thereto, Caselines 007-32 to 007-34
163 Sworn Statement: paras 60 and 61, Caselines 007-34. read with Annexure "MR 7 .1" thereto,
Caselines 007-72 to 007-83
164 Sworn Statement: Annexure "MR7.2" thereto, Caselines 007-166 to 007-167
165 Sworn Statement: par 61, Caselines 007-34, read with Annexure "MR 7.1" thereto, at 007-83
33
[89] The Applicant further annexed to her Sworn Statement, Quotations/Proforma
Invoices, from an Industrial Psychologist, 166a firm of Actuaries, 167 a Chartered
Accountant, 168and a Valuer/Sworn Appraiser.169
[90] I will revert to tlte Bill of Costs, and supporting annexures further hereinbelow.
[91] In his opposition to the Applicant's claim for a contribution to her future legal
costs, the Respondent states that:-
91.1. the Applicant should not be entitled to a contribution towards costs as it
is the Applicant who is insistent on proceeding with litigation in
circumstances where, in the Respondent's view, "this matter could easily
be resolved'170 and where it is unnecessary to "incur such high legal
fees";111
91.2. despite requests made to the Applicant's attorneys by his attorney to
mediate the matter, this was rejected by the Applicant's attorneys with a
''flimsy excuse"; 172
91.3. he cannot afford the Applicant's legal costs "of an expensive attorney who
is intent on litigation";173
91.4. prior to the Respondent issuing Summons, and in an effort to avoid
litigation, he had entered into verbal settlement discussions with the
Applicant, which were in his view, fair and reasonable. He was forced to
166 Sworn Statement: Annexure "MR 6.1" thereto, being from Jacobson Talmud Consulting, dated 05
November 2024, Caselines 007-66
167 Sworn Statement: Annexure "MR 6.2" thereto, being from Gilbey Forensic & Financial Services (Pty)
Limited, dated 05 November 2024, Caselines 007-67 to 007-68
168 Sworn Statement: Annexure "MR 6.3" thereto, being from Gary Lewis, Chartered Accountant (SA),
dated 07 November 2024, Caselines 007-69 to 007-70
169 Sworn Statement: Annexure "MR 6.4" thereto, being from George Taylor, dated 06 November
2024, Caselines 007-71
170 Sworn Reply: paras 241 and 242, Caselines 007-146
171 Sworn Reply: par 244, Caselines 007-146
172 Sworn Reply: par 243, Caselines 007-146
173 Sworn Reply: par 245, Caselines 007-146
34
issue Summons as the Applicant was: "disgusted with the idea that she
would be expected to work for the rest of her life";174and
91.5. legal argument would be addressed at the hearing of the matter on the
"excessive nature" of the required fees which the Respondent submitted
were "excessive, unnecessary and unaffordable".175
[92] Whilst the Respondent's Counsel did address legal argument to the Court at
the hearing of the matter in regard to the Applicant's claim for a contribution to
costs, neither the Respondent, in his Sworn Reply, nor his Counsel during
argument, interrogated tlte Bill of Costs or raised an objection to any item in
respect of the fees and disbursements as reflected therein. The Respondent's
failure to interrogate the Bill of Costs is of no assistance to the Court. This point
was also made by the Applicant's Counsel, during argument, when she
submitted that one would have expected the Respondent, if he opposed tlte Bill
of Costs, to state to which items therein he objected, and as one would have
done in a scenario when a Bill of Costs is to be taxed.
[93] The legal principles applicable to a claim for a contribution to costs, have been
crystalised in various decisions by our Courts over the years, and the essence
of which is the following:-
93.1. a claim for a contribution to costs is a claim sui generis and has its basis
in the reciprocal duty of support between spouses;176
93.2. although the rules of the duty of support between spouses are gender
neutral, in light of the traditional childcare roles and the wealth disparity
between men and women, the norm has been that it is generally women
who seek relief from the Courts in terms of Rule 43(1 )(b);177
174 Sworn Reply: par 246, Caselines 007-146
175 Sworn Reply: par 247, Caselines 007-147
176 Cary v Cary: 1999 (3) SA 615 (C); AF v MF: 2019 (6) SA 422 (WCC), at 428 E -F
177 AF v MF: 2019 (6) SA 422 (WCC), at par [30]
35
93.3. the purpose of the remedy is therefore to enable the party in the pending
divorce action, who is comparatively speaking, financially disadvantaged
in relation to the other party, to adequately put their case before Court.178
93.4. as to what is "adequate" will depend upon the nature of the litigation, the
scale on which the husband is litigating and the scale on which the wife
intends to litigate, with due regard being had to the husband's financial
position;179
93.5. Rule 43(1 )(b), and the remedy provided thereby, must be interpreted
through the prism of the Constitution, specifically in regard to the right to
equality before the law and equal protection of the law.180 The
contribution towards costs should ensure that there is equality of arms
for the wife in the divorce action against her husband.181 The Court is
also bound to ensure access to Court as provided for in Section 34 of
the Constitution182 A spouse's right to dignity, as envisaged in Section
1 O of the Constitution, when that spouse is deprived of the necessary
means to litigate and when she has to go cap in hand to family or friends
to borrow funds for legal costs or is forced to be beholden to an attorney,
who is willing to wait for payment of fees and as such to effectively act
as her banker·183
'
93.6. the quantum of the contribution to costs which a Court may order a
spouse to pay, lies within the discretion of the presiding Judge. In this
regard, the Court should have regard to the circumstances of the case,
the financial position of the parties, and the particular issues involved in
178 Van Rippen v Van Rippen: 1949 (4) SA 634 (C), at 638 and 639; SH v MH: 2023 (6) SA 279 (GJ) at
par[74] •
179 Dodo v Dodo: 1990 (2) SA 77 (W), at par 98 C
180 AF v MF: 2019 (6) SA 422 (WCC)
181 Cary v Cary: 1999 (3) SA 615 (C) at 621
182 SH v MH: 2023 (6) SA 279 (GJ) at paras [89] to [90]
183 AF v MF: 2019 (6) SA 422 (WCC, par (42]; SH v MH: 2023 (6) SA 279 (GJ), par [105]; J.K v E.S.K
[2024] 1 All SA 775 (WCC), par [53]
36
the pending litigation in order for the wife to be enabled to adequately
present her case before the Court. 184
[94] I will therefore proceed to evaluate, and in the exercise of my discretion, make
a determination in regard to, the Applicant's claim for a contribution to her future
costs, against the backdrop of the aforementioned legal principles.
[95] Items 1 to 33, and 166 to 171 of the Bill of Costs pertain to this Rule 43
application , 185 and the fees and disbursements, including Counsel's fees,
associated therewith , together with VAT thereon and which amounts to
R363,590 .12. Given that the Applicant is also seeking an Order to the effect
that the Respondent pay the costs of this application , at the conclusion of the
Applicant's Counsel's submission in chief, I requested her to address me in this
regard as, in my view, it is clear that the Applicant could not be entitled to both.
The Applicant's Counsel conceded that if I were to award the costs of this Rule
43 application to the Applicant, then I should disallow the contribution , as
claimed in the Bill of Costs, and vice versa.
[96] There is of course a further option, which is that I neither grant the claim for a
contribution, as contained in the Bill of Costs, in regard to the Rule 43
application, nor order the Respondent to pay the costs of this application, but
rather that I make an order, which is not uncommon in Rule 43 applications , for
the costs thereof to be costs in the cause of the divorce action.
[97] In light of the view that I have taken, and as dealt with further hereinbelow , in
regard to the costs of this application, the contribution to costs in respect of the
Rule 43 application, as contained in the Bill of Costs, is disallowed.
[98] Insofar as the balance of the claim for a contribution to future costs, as
contained in tlte Bill of Costs is concerned, I have considered tlte Bill of Costs,
bearing in mind that this is a claim for an initial contribution to future costs, albeit
184 AF v MF: 2019 (6) SA 422 (WCC, par [28], including the quotation from Van Rippen v Van Rippen
therein
185 Sworn Statement: Annexure "MR 7.1" thereto, Caselines 007-72 to 007-74 and 007-166 to 007-171
37
that the Bill of Costs reflects the estimated costs up to and including the first day
of trial, that the Applicant is the Defendant in the divorce action and that the
Applicant can bring a further application or applications for additional
contributions to costs if the need arises, even during the trial. In this context, I
therefore have the following specific comments in regard to the Bill of Costs:-
NO. ITEM NO. COMMENT
98.1. 126186 If regard is had to the Quotation of the industrial
psychologist, the fee for the Report is reasonable
considering the Applicant's claim for spousal
maintenance. The remaining items are reflected as "if
needed' and as such are disallowed at this stage.
98.2. 134187
98.3. 140188 If regard is had to the cost estimate from the actuary,
arising from the Applicant's claim for spousal
maintenance, the fee for the Report, which includes
consulting, is reasonable with the remaining items
being disallowed at this stage.
If regard is had to the estimated fee indication of the
chartered accountant , who is required inter alia, for
determining the accrual, including forensic
accounting , no detail is provided of the hourly rate for
the junior staff referred to therein. It is common cause
that there has not been full disclosure by the
Respondent, that discovery has not taken place, and
that further Subpoenae are yet to be served. The
estimate of 90 hours at R2,500 per hour, excluding
VAT, is in my view, at this juncture, premature and
excessive in the circumstances. Half of the aforegoing
is reasonable, in the circumstances of this matter, at
this stage. In regard to the further costs in paragraph
186 Bill of Costs: 007-79, read with Annexure "MR 6.1" to the Sworn Statement , Caselines 007-66
187 Bill of Costs: 007-80, read with Annexure "MR 6.2" to the Sworn Statement, Caselines 007-67 to
007-68
188 Bill of Costs: 007-80, read with Annexure "MR 6.3" to the Sworn Statement, Caselines 007-69 to
007-70
38
NO. ITEM NO. COMMENT
98.4. 146189
98.5. 172
184190 6 of the fee estimate, same are premature at this stage
and the reference to valuations of fixed property and
land may overlap with the fees of the registered valuer
and appraiser and could lead to a duplication of
fees/costs, and are accordingly disallowed at this
stage.
If regard is had to the Proforma Invoice of the
valuer/appraiser, the fee for the valuation of the
matrimonial home is reasonable considering that the
accrual is required to be determined. The remaining
items are disallowed at this stage
to These items pertain to Counsel's fees and amount to
R362, 000.00, excluding VAT. Half of this amount, as
an initial contribution, in the facts and circumstances
of this matter, is reasonable .
[99] In regard to the remaining items on the Bill of Costs, they pertain to fees and
disbursements (excluding the disbursements referred to above) of the Applicant's
attorneys which, excluding fees and disbursements in regard to the Rule 43
application , which have been disallowed for the reasons dealt with above,
amount to approximately R587,000.00 (including VAT). In my view, an amount
of R250,000.00, plus VAT thereon, as an initial contribution to future costs in
respect of the Applicant's attorneys, is reasonable in the facts and
circumstances of this matter.
[100] Insofar as the principle of equality of arms is concerned, it was submitted by
Respondent's Counsel during argument that there is no equality of arms as the
Applicant has a Senior Counsel and senior attorney representing her, whereas
the Respondent does not. That said, it was submitted that perhaps the
Applicant should be the one contributing to the Respondent's costs. I am not
189 Bill of Costs: 007-80, read with Annexure "MR 6.4" to the Sworn Statement, Caselines 007-71
190 Bill of Costs: 007-82
39
persuaded by this submission. Albeit that often in matters which have come
before our Courts in regard to a wife seeking a contribution for costs, the
husband was the one who had briefed Senior Counsel, and sometimes two
Counsel, in my view, and based on the facts and circumstances in casu, and
specifically by virtue of the Respondent not playing open cards in regard to his
financial affairs and by not making full disclosure in his FDF, that it is this
conduct on the part of the Respondent which is, with respect, dictating the scale
on which the Applicant is required to litigate.
[101] In my view, and for the above reasons, the sum of R700,000.00, inclusive of
VAT, represents an adequate initial contribution to the Applicant's future costs
in the pending divorce action.
COSTS OF THIS APPLICATION
[102] It is trite that this Court also has a discretion when it comes to the issue of
ordering costs, which discretion must be exercised judicially.
[103] As dealt with hereinabove, the Applicant is seeking the costs of this application
on a punitive scale, being the scale as between attorney and client, and on
Scale C, as provided for in Uniform Rule of Court, 69. The Respondent, in turn,
seeks an Order that the Applicant pay the costs of this Application, on Scale A.
[104] On the facts before me, I am of the view that the Applicant was entitled to launch
this application, as was the Respondent entitled to oppose the same. Insofar
as the allegations pertaining to the Respondent's lack of full and frank
disclosure, of which this Court has also taken cognisance in relation to the
Respondent 's FDF, as dealt with above, this aspect has already been taken into
account in dealing with the Applicant's claim for a contribution towards her
costs, which claim included a contribution in regard to an auditor/accountant to
investigate the Respondent's financial affairs.
(105] Both parties have pointed fingers at one another for not actively attempting to
mediate the disputes between them. I accept that the Applicant would not be
40
in a position to consider mediating meaningfully, as she says, "at this stage
on/y",191 until she has received full and frank disclosure.
[106] Both parties have been partially successful, as it were, in this application, and I
am therefore not inclined, in the circumstances of this matter, to award costs in
favour of either of the parties. I am accordingly of the view that the usual order
relating to costs of an application under Rule 43 should apply, being that the
costs of this application should be costs in the cause of the divorce action.
ORDER
In the circumstances, I make the following order, pendente lite:-
[1] the Applicant is to continue to reside in, and to enjoy full and undisturbed
possession of, the matrimonial home, situated in Lonehill, Sandton ("the
property")'
[2] the Respondent is to continue paying the Applicant an amount of R15, 000.00
per month, payable in advance on or before the first day of each and every
month, with the next payment being due on or before OJ April 2025. The amount
of R15, 000.00 shall escalate on the anniversary of the date of the granting of
this this Order, in accordance with the percentage rate increase in the Headline
Consumer Price Index for the preceding 12-month period, based on the
statistics as published by Statistics SA, or its successor;
[3] the Respondent is ordered to continue paying the following monthly expenses
directly to the service providers concerned, either via existing debit order, or
electronic funds transfer, or where applicable, within 5 (five) days of the
Respondent being placed in receipt, by the Applicant, of the relevant invoice
and/or statement of account in regard to such expense:
191 Sworn Statement: par 64, Caselines 007-36
41
3.1 the costs of water and electricity consumption, rates, taxes, refuse and
sewage in respect of tlze property ;
3.2 armed response subscriptions in relation to the property;
3.3 household and/or homeowners' insurance, including any excesses;
3.4 the subscriptio n in respect of the fixed landline at the property;
3.5 interneUfibre subscriptions;
3.6 the salary of the domestic worker in the sum of RS,000.00 per month;
3.7 DSTV subscriptions;
3.8 annual subscription in respect of TV licenses;
3.9 in relation to the BMW XS and Mercedes Benz ML350 motor vehicles in
the possession of the Applicant ("the vehicles"), the Applicant being
entitled to the full use and enjoyment of the vehicles:
3.9.1 insurance, including any excesses;
3.9.2 Netstar and/or Tracker subscriptions;
3.9.3 annual vehicle license renewal fees;
3.9.4 repairs, maintenance, tyre replacement and services;
3.10 the Applicant's gym membership, currently in the sum of R1 ,370.00, and
any annual escalation in regard thereto, as levied by the relevant service
provider;
3.11 the monthly premiums in regard to the Applicant's membership as a
dependent of the medical aid scheme of which the Respondent is the
main member;
3.12 any excess and/or non-recoverable medical expenses incurred by the
Applicant which are not covered, refunded and/or discharged by the
aforementioned medical aid scheme, the incurring of such expenses to
be agreed with the Respondent beforehand, save in the event of an
emergency, and excluding any cosmetic or aesthetic surgeries;
42
[4] in the event that the Applicant makes payment of any costs referred to above
for which the Respondent is liable in terms of the Order, the Respondent shall
reimburse the Applicant within 5 (five) days of being provided with proof of
payment by the Applicant of such expense;
[5] any and all payments due to be made by the Respondent to the Applicant , as
provided for above, must be cleared, available and accessible on or before the
due date of such payment;
[6] the Respondent shall allow the Applicant the use of the Respondent's current
available travel perquisite, arising from his employment with Qatar Airlines,
being one free international airline ticket per annum, from Johannesburg to
Doha, Qatar, within the parameters of what such free ticket entails, as dictated
by the Respondent's employer from time to time in regard thereto, commencing
with effect from 2025, and for as long as the Respondent continues to remain in
the employ of Qatar Airlines. The Applicant shall be liable for all and any
additional travelling expenses as may exceed the parameters the free ticket, as
aforesaid;
[7] the Respondent is ordered to continue paying the following expenses in respect
of the major dependent children born of the marriage between the parties, in
toto including, but not limited to:-
7 .1 tertiary fees;
7.2 rental;
7.3 food, groceries, cleaning materials and toiletries;
7.4 motor vehicle insurance, Tracker, and annual license fees in respect of
the major daughter's Hyundai motor vehicle;
7.5 clothing and shoes;
7.6 personal care;
7.7 books and stationary;
7.8 outings;
43
7.9 ad hoc educational expenses ;
7.10 the monthly premiums in regard to the major daughter of the parties'
membership as a dependent of the medical aid scheme of which the
Respondent is the main member;
7.11 any excess medical expenses in respect of the major daughter not
covered by the Respondent's medical aid scheme;
7.12 retaining the major son of the parties on a separate medical aid scheme,
paying the monthly premiums in regard to such membership and any
excess medical expenses not covered by said medical aid scheme;
7.13 pocket money; and
7.14 any further ad hoc expenses;
[8] the Respondent is ordered to pay the sum of R700,000.00 (seven hundred
thousand rand), which amount is inclusive of VAT, to the Applicant and into a
bank account as nominated by her, as a contribution towards the Applicant's
legal costs, payable in 2 (two) equal monthly instalments in the amount of
R350, 000.00 each, the first instalment being due and payable on OJ April 2025
and the second instalment being due and payable on 01 May 2025;
[9] the costs of this application are costs in the cause of the divorce action.
Electronically submitted 44
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF S UT
GAUTENG DIVISION , JOHANNESBURG
Delivered: This Order was prepared and authored by the Acting Judge whose name is reflected
herein and is handed down electronically by circulation to the Parties I their legal
representatives by e-mail and by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on Court
Online/CaseLines. The date of the Judgment is deemed to be 19 March 2025.

Dates Of Hearing:
Date Of Judgment:
APPEARANCES:
For Applicant:
For Respondent: 26 February 2025
19 March 2025
Advocate A De Wet S.C
Instructed by: Steve Merchak Attorneys
Advocate K. Howard
Instructed by: Jennifer Scholtz Attorney 45