A luxury vehicle valued at R850,000 and replaced every five years sits at the center of a high-stakes legal clash unfolding before the Northern Cape High Court in Kimberley, IOL reported.
Judge Almé Stanton dealt with an interim application in divorce proceedings where the wife asked the court to grant her permanent spousal maintenance alongside a house worth R4 million, according to the IOL report.
Having wed in March 2013 under an antenuptial contract that includes the accrual system, the pair still face significant monetary disputes that will need to be settled as the legal battle moves forward.
The interim application focused specifically on how much the husband should contribute toward the wife’s legal costs while the divorce proceeds, rather than determining her permanent maintenance or property claims.
The woman told the court that she had relied on financial assistance from her elderly parents to fund the litigation, seeking a contribution of R915,400 toward her anticipated legal fees.
She also asked for R230,000 toward the fees of a forensic accountant and R35,190 toward an industrial psychologist, according to the court filings cited by IOL.
The forensic accountant was intended to investigate the husband’s financial affairs, including the valuation of his company, loan accounts, and allegedly undisclosed assets, while the industrial psychologist would assess her earning capacity after eight years working in her husband’s company.
The husband opposed the application and described the anticipated legal costs of R915,400 as “shocking, astonishing and absurd,” arguing that she should not engage an attorney charging R40,000 a day when he had appointed local attorneys at considerably lower rates.
Judge Stanton found that the husband had failed to make full disclosure of his personal expenses, noting that an adverse inference could be drawn regarding the completeness of his financial disclosure.
Although the husband claimed to earn a monthly salary of R15,832.97, the judge noted he was able to contribute an additional R39,047 toward the maintenance of his wife and children.
The court considered that he was the sole shareholder and director of a company which he controlled and which had incurred substantial expenditure, finding no basis to conclude he could not afford to contribute.
As part of the ruling, he was directed to disburse an initial sum of R259,210 for legal expenses through eight monthly payments of R32,401.25, in addition to covering the forensic accountant’s fees up to R230,000 and the industrial psychologist’s expenses up to R34,590 once appropriate invoices are provided.
The outstanding divorce issues include the determination of the wife’s accrual claim and whether she is entitled to permanent spousal maintenance until her death or remarriage.
Her claim encompasses maintenance for two minor children, medical aid and medical expenses, a house valued at R4 million, and the luxury vehicle worth R850,000 that would be replaced every five years.
The R4 million property appears to be a new residence requested rather than the existing matrimonial home, according to the ruling.
In his counterclaim, the husband offered R30,000 a month toward the children’s maintenance, covering medical aid, medical expenses, education, and housing costs, but made no offer toward his wife’s maintenance.
The court stressed that determining the true value of the parties’ estates remains necessary before finalising the divorce, warning that a failure to establish their financial position could prejudice the wife’s claims.
