Wife’s R4 milliom home and permanent-maintenance claims remain undecided.
A woman in the process of divorcing her husband has asked the court to grant her permanent spousal maintenance, a house worth R4 million and a luxury vehicle valued at R850,000 to be replaced every five years.
The woman’s claims are among the outstanding issues in the divorce proceedings before the Northern Cape High Court in Kimberley, where the couple married in March 2013 out of community of property with the inclusion of the accrual system.
Judge Almé Stanton dealt with an interim application in which the wife sought financial assistance from her husband to fund the divorce litigation.
The court was not asked to determine her permanent maintenance, or property claims at this stage, but to decide how much the husband should contribute towards her legal costs while the divorce proceedings continued.
Wife relies on parents to fund divorce battle
The woman told the court that she had been relying on financial assistance from her elderly parents to fund the litigation.
She sought a contribution of R915,400 towards her anticipated legal fees, including the costs of her attorney and counsel up to the start of the trial.
She also wanted her husband to pay R230,000 towards the fees of a forensic accountant and R35,190 towards an industrial psychologist.
The forensic accountant would investigate her husband's financial affairs, including the valuation of his company, loan accounts and allegedly undisclosed assets.
The industrial psychologist, meanwhile, would assess her earning capacity after she had spent eight years working in her husband's company.
Husband disputes legal costs
The husband opposed the application, describing the wife's anticipated legal costs of R915,400 as "shocking, astonishing and absurd".
He argued that she should not be entitled to engage an attorney charging R40,000 a day when he had appointed local attorneys and counsel at considerably lower rates.
He initially offered R25,000 towards her legal costs, later increasing the offer to R150,000.
He also argued that appointing a forensic accountant was premature and that the industrial psychologist's evidence was unnecessary.
Court orders husband to pay more than R500,000
Judge Stanton found that the husband had failed to make full disclosure of his personal expenses and that an adverse inference could be drawn regarding the completeness of his financial disclosure.
The judge noted that although the husband claimed to earn a monthly salary of R15,832.97, he was able to contribute an additional R39,047 towards the maintenance of his wife and children.
The court also considered that he was the sole shareholder and director of a company which he controlled, and that the company had incurred substantial expenditure.
The judge found no basis to conclude that the husband could not afford to contribute towards the wife's legal costs.
The court ordered him to pay an initial contribution of R259,210 towards her legal costs, inclusive of VAT, in eight monthly instalments of R32,401.25.
He was also ordered to pay the forensic accountant's fees up to R230,000 and the industrial psychologist's fees up to R34,590, upon presentation of the relevant invoices.
Permanent maintenance and R4m property claim still to be decided
The judge stressed that the outstanding divorce issues included the determination of the wife's accrual claim and whether she was entitled to permanent spousal maintenance.
Her claim includes maintenance for their two minor children, maintenance until her death or remarriage, medical aid and medical expenses, a house valued at R4 million and a vehicle worth R850,000, to be replaced every five years.
According to the ruling, the R4 million property appears to be a new property she wants acquired for her, rather than the existing matrimonial home.
The husband, in his counterclaim, offered R30,000 a month towards the children's maintenance, including their medical aid, medical expenses, education and housing costs, but made no offer towards his wife's maintenance.
The court said determining the true value of the parties' estates was important before the divorce could be finalised, warning that a failure to establish their financial position could prejudice the wife's maintenance claim and the determination of her accrual claim.
The judge further said the contribution towards legal costs did not give either party permission to incur unreasonable expenses, urging them to explore settlement and avoid unnecessarily prolonged litigation.
The ruling does not decide whether the wife will ultimately receive the R4 million house, the R850,000 vehicle or permanent maintenance. Those claims remain for determination in the divorce action.