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 DIVISION, PRETORIA
Case number: 2019-86009
Date of hearing: 31 October 2025
Date delivered: 5 November 2025
(1) REPORTABLE: YES/NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHERS JUDGES: YES/NO
(3) REVISED
DATE 5/11/25
SIGNATURE
In the application between:
V[...] M[...] P[...] M[...] Applicant
and
C[...] N[...]-W[...] First Respondent
DIVORCE SETTLEMENT SERVICES Second Respondent
RUDOLF PHILLIPUS JORDAAN N.O. Third Respondent
This judgment is handed down electronically by the Judge whose name is
reflected herein, and is submitted to the parties or their legal representative by
email. This order is further uploaded to the electronic file of CaseLines by the
Judge or his Registrar. The date of this order is deemed to be 5 November 2025.
__________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
SWANEPOEL J:
[1] This is an application for leave to appeal pursuant to my judgment dated 1
September 2025. The application was delivered out of time, and there is an
application for condonation for the late filing thereof. I have considered the
application for condonation, and believe that it is appropriate to grant condonation ,
as, after judgment was handed down, there was some controversy on whether I
should have ordered the applicant to pay interest on the capital sum , which delayed
the launching of this application. Consequently, condonation shall be granted.
[2] As far as the merits are concerned, the applicant now relies on two ground in
support of its contention that the liquidator’s report is assailable. Firstly, the applicant
says that the liquidator erred in finding that there was no evidence that the applicant
had fully divulged her investments to the respondent in advance of the marriage, and
that he should, therefore, have excluded the investments from the calculation of the
division of the estate.
[3] Secondly, the applicant says, now, that the liquidator misconstrued his duties
when he refused to consider what deductions to allow from the applicant’s portion of
the estate as maintenance for the minor children.
[4] When one considers these submissions, it is important to note what case the
applicant has made out in her answering affidavit. Generally, the answering affidavit
simply makes the repetitive submission that the applicant disagrees with the report,
and that she has always intended to challenge the report. The closest one gets to
the reason for her disagreement is in paragraph 90 where she says:
“It is however denied that the calculation of my allocation account was
effected correctly, more specifically, as amongst other things, certain amounts
and items which were expressly to be excluded from the calculation as per the
Settlement agreement that was made an order of court when the applicant
Settlement agreement that was made an order of court when the applicant
and I divorced and which is attached to the applicant’s founding affidavit as
part of Annexure “VM1”, (“the settlement agreement”), were included, without
justification and/or sufficient justification therefore in light of the terms of the
Settlement Agreement and the prevailing factual circumstances.”
[5] There is no factual basis given for the averment that “certain items” should
have been excluded. In argument counsel for the applicant argued that the
agreement allowed for the exclusion of those investments and shares that the
applicant had disclosed to the respondent before the divorce settlement was entered
into. He pointed to an email dated 14 November 2018 to which was attached a
statement of investments. The problem is that the answering affidavit , although it
referred thereto, did not specifically deal with this email. Furthermore, it was
addressed to the applicant’s current attorney, not to the respondent, when the
attorney was still acting as mediator between the parties. There is no evidence that
the statement was ever disclosed to the respondent.
[6] The second basis for the application is that the applicant now says that the
liquidator failed to consider what amounts should be allocated to the applicant, and
not shared with the respondent, as a result of her using her settlement funds to
maintain the children. In doing so, the applicant now says that the liquidator failed to
understand his duties. In the answering affidavit the applicant dealt with the issue as
follows:
“….and included my severance package obtained from ABInbev (SAB) in such
calculations without a reasonable basis, despite Mr Jordaan’s power to determine
which deductions will be allowed from the payment received.
[7] It bears repetition that the test to be applied in considering whether to adopt
the rapport is whether the liquidator was unreasonable, irregular or wrong. The
applicant’s repeated averments that she did not agree with the liquidator are
insufficient justification to refuse to adopt the rapport. The respondent has not
established that the liquidator was wrong, or unreasonable, or that his rapport was in
any manner irregular. For those reasons I do not believe that another court would
reasonably come to a different finding.
[8] I make the following order:
reasonably come to a different finding.
[8] I make the following order:
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs on Scale C.
SWANEPOEL J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION PRETORIA
Counsel for the applicant: Adv. F Kriel
Instructed by: Du Toit’s Attorneys
Counsel for the respondent: Adv. G Ngcangisa
Instructed by: Ningiza Horner Inc
Heard on: 31 October 2025
Judgment on: 5 November 2025