The Johannesburg High Court has ruled in favour of a British woman’s application to divorce her South African husband, who is 17 years younger than her.
The man must also pay back more than R1-million which he got from his British wife.
Acting Johannesburg High Court judge Lungile Bhengu handed down the judgement electronically last week Thursday. This after the UK citizen brought an application to divorce her husband.
The case was heard in the divorce court from July 29 to July 31 this year. Arguments were heard on September 16 this year.
The applicant or plaintiff in the matter is mentioned as JC-T according to the court papers. And the defendant is described as ST according to the court papers.
Married in community of property in 2016
According to court papers, the parties were married on September 30, 2016 in community of property. There are no children born from the marriage.
In June 2019 the plaintiff instituted a divorce action against the defendant. She sought a decree of divorce and division of the joint estate. Also an order in terms of section 9(1) of the Divorce Act, 1979, (“the Act”). This declares that the defendant forfeits the immovable property situated in Oakland Park Johannesburg (“The Property”). Also an Audi A3 motor vehicle, and proceeds of the FNB 32 Day Flexi Investment account (“The Investment”).
In response to the plaintiff’s claim, the defendant raised a counter claim seeking a decree of divorce. He sought division of the joint estate and an order declaring that the plaintiff forfeits the same immovable property. Also two motor vehicles in the defendant’s possession, namely, an Audi A3 and a Colt L 200. The counter claim was opposed by the plaintiff.
The parties in the case agreed that their marriage relationship has irretrievably broke down. Each party alleged different grounds for the breakdown of the marriage.
Both parties seeking assets
The remaining issue for decision by the court was for each party’s claim for forfeiture of the specific assets.
The British woman’s total estate was valued at approximately R6-million at the time of the marriage.
The evidence presented in court showed that the plaintiff is a citizen of The United Kingdom. The defendant is a South African citizen. They met and fell in love with each other in Windhoek, Namibia in 2014.
When the defendant stopped working in 2015, both left Namibia and relocated to South Africa to start a new life. In South Africa they stayed at the defendant’s house in Lyndhaven, Roodepoort.
“It is common cause that when the parties met, the plaintiff was in the process of divorce from her marriage relationship of 18 years. As part of a divorce settlement from that marriage, the plaintiff received certain funds that were deposited into the defendant’s banking account held with FNB. Of the funds received, the defendant transferred an amount of R1,024 000.00 into his FNB 32 Day Flexi investment account. This account was controlled by the defendant and the plaintiff was only receiving notifications of the transactions in the account,” said Bhengu.
Woman funded house, assets when they moved to SA
The court said the plaintiff also sold one of her immovable property. The property was worth 4,500 000.00 Namibian dollars, situated in Namibia. She used part of the proceeds from the sale to buy their marital home. The home, situated in Oakland Park, Johannesburg, cost R2,7-million, including transfer costs.
“The plaintiff also bought an Audi Cabriolet motor vehicle for the defendant whilst they were courting. It is these three assets that are subject to the forfeiture claim by the plaintiff. Due to the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage relationship between the parties, the Plaintiff left the marital home. She… relocated to the United Kingdom in November 2018. The parties’ marriage relationship lasted for two years nine months,” said Bhengu.
Divorce granted, man’s counter-claim dismissed
Bhengu granted the plaintiff a decree of divorce. She ordered that the defendant forfeit R1, 076 859,93 cents previously held in his FNB bank account to the plaintiff.
The remainder of the joint estate shall be divided between the two parties, she said.
Bhengu said the adjustment shall be effected in favour of the plaintiff on division of the remainder of the joint estate.
The defendant’s counter claim was dismissed.
