The Western Cape High Court has stepped in to cool a bitter divorce standoff, sparing an estranged couple from punitive costs as they continue to fight over money, maintenance and allegations of infidelity.
In a judgment delivered on Monday, Judge Mark Wille refused an application by the husband to split the divorce itself from disputes over accrual and lifelong maintenance, warning that procedural shortcuts could leave one party financially exposed.
Crucially, the court also declined to punish either side with adverse costs. It chose restraint over retribution in a matter already heavy with emotion.
Wille stressed that divorce litigation is not merely about efficiency but equity.
Financially vulnerable spouses
“The court has a duty to protect potential financially vulnerable spouses from procedural gymnastics that may jeopardise their financial security,” he said, setting the tone for a ruling focused on balance rather than speed.
The husband had argued that granting an immediate decree of divorce would allow both parties to move on. He added that disputes over money could follow later. The court disagreed, finding that such a separation would not simplify the case.
“The separation sought will now not result in the curtailment and expeditious disposal of this litigation,” Wille held.
At the heart of the dispute lies a long marriage, an antenuptial contract with accrual, and sharply conflicting narratives.
The husband cited a breakdown in communication. However, the wife accused him of serial infidelity and a secret affair with a younger employee. These are claims that may still need to be tested at trial.
Matter had been drifting without a trial date
Wille noted that the matter had been drifting without a trial date until he engaged the judge president and the parties. This resulted in an agreed trial date from August 17 to 28, 2026, to bring the dispute to a close.
He emphasised that separating issues in divorces of this nature is rare.
“It seems that separations of the species sought in this case are granted in exceptional circumstances,” Wille noted.
In weighing prejudice, the court found the scales tipped decisively.
“The potential prejudice as contended for by the plaintiff pales into insignificance compared with the potential prejudice to the defendant,” Wille ruled, particularly given unresolved questions around post-divorce maintenance and financial disclosure.
Cost order against plaintiff inappropriate
On costs, the court struck a conciliatory note. Given that interim interdicts had been granted to both sides at different stages, Wille found that punishment would inflame rather than resolve the conflict.
“A costs order against the plaintiff in connection with the separation issue would be inappropriate,” he said. He added that it would be equally unfair to burden the wife with costs arising from earlier interdictory relief.
The matter will now proceed to a single, fully ventilated divorce trial later this year. And the court opted for calm containment over financial carnage.
