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 NO: 003160/2023
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED: NO
(4) Date: 10 February 2026
Signature:
In the matter between:
R[...] M[...] G[...] (born R[...]) Applicant
And
2
D[...] J[...] M[...] G[...] Respondent
JUDGMENT
NYATHI J
A. Introduction
[1] This is an opposed application brought in terms of Rule 43 of the Uniform
Rules of Court. The Applicant seeks pendente lite relief comprising (a) a cash
maintenance component in addition to the Respondent’s existing direct
payments, and (b) a contribution towards her legal costs in the pending divorce
action. Both aspects are strenuously opposed by the Respondent, who alleges
that the application constitutes an abuse of process and should be dismissed
with punitive costs.
B. Background and Common Cause Facts
[2] The parties are married to each other, and three children were born of the
relationship: one major son and two minors. The Applicant is resident with the
children in South Africa, while the Respondent has resided and worked in
Scotland since 2021.
[3] The Respondent pays a range of household and child -related expenses
directly, including the mortgage bond, school fees, medical aid, insurance,
rates and taxes, security services, and certain personal and educational
expenses of the children. The cumulative value of these items amounts to
approximately R59 834 per month, representing 57% of his net income of £4
548 ( RXX depending on exchange rate).
3
[4] The Applicant was retrenched from her primary employment in December 2024
but resumed new employment on 10 March 2025, earning approximately R30
000 per month, in addition to retaining her secondary bookkeeping income of
R8 640. Her combined net income is thus R38 640 per month.
C. Issues for Determination
[5] The issues requiring determination are:
5.1 Whether the Applicant has made out a case for pendente lite
monetary maintenance beyond what the Respondent is already
paying;
5.2 Whether the Applicant has established an entitlement for a
contribution towards her legal costs; and
5.3 Whether this Rule 43 application constitutes an abuse of
process.
D. Applicable Legal Principles
[6] The purpose of Rule 43 is to provide quick and interim relief to a spouse who
may otherwise be left destitute or unable to prosecute or defend pending
matrimonial litigation. It is not intended as a mechanism to obtain a financial
advantage or to pre-determine issues reserved for trial.
4
[7] In Nilsson v Nilsson 1, the court warned that Rule 43 was not designed to
operate as an “interim meal ticket” for applicants who would ultimately fail to
establish a right to maintenance at trial.
[8] In ACC v A LC2, Makgoka J (as he then was) stressed the need to scrutinize
whether the disputes are genuinely raised, noting the recurring pattern of
parties weaponizing interim orders to secure benefits unattainable at trial.
[9] In Du Preez v Du Preez 3 it was held that the principle of uberrima fides applies
with particular force to Rule 43 applications. A party who fails to disclose full
and accurate financial information, or who presents contradictory or misleading
information, risks dismissal of the application.
E. Evaluation
Monetary Maintenance:
[10] The Applicant premised her request for substantial cash maintenance on
alleged financial distress following her retrenchment. However, the evidence
reveals that she resumed full ‑time employment eight days after launching this
application, increasing her net monthly income to approximately R38 640 —
materially higher than her pre ‑retrenchment salary. Despite this, she did not
seek leave to supplement her evidence by affidavit, as required.
[11] The Respondent has demonstrated that he already pays the overwhelming
majority of the children’s fixed and predictable expenses, amounting to more
1 1984 (2) SA 294 (C) at 295F.
2 (27058/2012) [2012] ZAGPPHC 193 (24 August 2012), par 4.
3 2009 (6) SA 29 (T) par 15 and 16.
5
than half of his total net income. The Applicant does not dispute these
payments as a matter of fact.
[12] The Applicant’s claimed monthly shortfalls are (a) unsubstantiated on the
evidence, (b) materially inflated in various categories, and (c) contradicted by
her own bank statements which reflect discretionary spending inconsistent with
the claimed financial hardship.
[13] On the totality of the evidence, the Applicant has not shown a need for urgent
interim relief. Rule 43 is reserved for cases where one party cannot meet basic
living needs. This is not such a case.
Contribution to Legal Costs:
[14] A contribution to costs is only awarded where necessary to ensure equality of
arms, and where the applicant shows she lacks sufficient means. This
requirement is not met.
[15] The Applicant earns R38 640 per month, has alternative income, and has not
demonstrated any inability to fund litigation preparation. Furthermore, the
nature of the divorce issues is not so complex as to necessitate extraordinary
upfront costs.
[16] The Respondent, by contrast, demonstrates limited surplus income after
meeting extensive direct expenditures for the children and household.
[17] On these facts, the Applicant has not discharged the onus of proving
insufficient means. The relief cannot be granted.
Abuse of Process
6
[18] The Respondent alleges that this application constitutes a tactical attempt to
align interim maintenance with the significantly higher relief sought in the
counterclaim.
[19] Several factors support the view that the application is not bona fide:
19.1 The A pplicant relied on an outdated financial disclosure (17
months old).
19.2 She launched the application on the basis of unemployment
while knowing she was imminently re‑employed.
19.3 She supplemented her financial disclosure informally and
irregularly.
19.4 The relief claimed exceeds what wou ld be reasonable even
pendente lite.
[20] These features are consistent with the concerns identified in ACC v A LC4,
where courts warned against applications driven by ulterior purpose rather than
genuine interim necessity.
[21] I am satisfied that this application amounts to a misuse of the Rule 43
procedure.
F. Conclusion
4 Supra at para [14].
7
[22] The Respondent’s existing contributions cover the bulk of the children’s
objectively necessary maintenance needs. The Applicant has not demonstrated
financial incapacity or entitlement to the additional relief sought.
[23] Further, the irregularities and contradictions in the Applicant’s presentation of
her financial circumstances, combined with the absence of interim necessity,
lead me to conclude that the application constitutes an abuse of the process of
this Court.
[24] The application therefore falls to be dismissed.
G. Order
The Applicant’s Rule 43 application is dismissed.
The Applicant is directed to pay the costs of this application, such costs to
include the costs of counsel, on the scale as between party and party to be taxed
at scale B in terms of the provisions of Rule 67A.
____________________
J.S. NYATHI
Judge of the High Court
Gauteng Division, Pretoria
8
Date of hearing: 12 June 2025
Date of Judgment: 10 February 2026
On behalf of the Applicant: Adv. Y van der Laarse
Instructed by: A. Engelbrecht Attorney.
On behalf of the Respondent: Adv. T. Ellerbeck
Instructed by: Sulandi du Plessis Attorneys
Delivery: This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties'
legal representatives by email and uploaded on the CaseLines electronic platform. The
date for hand-down is deemed to be 10 February 2026.