The wife instituted divorce proceedings against the husband and made an application for the husband to forfeit the benefits of the marriage in community of property in respect of the parties' immovable property in Polokwane and the wife’s pension interests in the Government Employees Pension Fund (GEPF).
The same court ruled last month that the husband was to pay maintenance of R5,000 per month towards their child, starting this month.
On the issue of forfeiture, it was not in dispute that the parties met at the University of the North (now University of Limpopo) in 1989 and were studying towards a BEd degree. They both graduated in 1994.
The husband struggled to get employment in his line of studies and was employed by a bank in 1995 as a teller until 1996 when he was employed at South African Breweries (SAB) until 2004 when he resigned. He then started his own liquor business at Ga-Mothapo.
He rented premises for running a bar using the money he got from SAB. Within a year, the pub business collapsed. In 2006, he joined Xerox and is still employed there.
On the other hand, the wife was employed as a teacher at a college for training teachers just after completing the BEd degree in 1994. She later switched from teaching and joined the government where she, over the years, rose to the level of a director in the government. She holds several postgraduate qualifications and a master's degree. The husband has not gone beyond his bachelor's degree in education.
The basis for forfeiture in respect of the immovable property was that the husband was not making a meaningful contribution to the joint estate. Alternatively, he did make some contribution as and when he liked. This was, however, denied by the husband. He testified that during the times he was employed, he contributed towards the bond, assisted with handy work, was solely responsible for gardening and drove their three children to school throughout their schooling days.
He further stated that his salary has always been far less to that of the wife and that was the reason that his proportional contribution appeared smaller as compared to the wife's.
The basis for forfeiture in respect of the pension benefits was that the husband failed to improve himself academically so that he could attract better employment offers. Further, it was argued that the husband had several extra marital affairs with several women and the court was requested to consider this as a contributory factor to the breakdown of the marriage.
Man entitled to half of the woman's money
Wife fails to prove why husband should forfeit 50% of her pension fund
Image: 123RF
The Limpopo High Court has ruled against a wife who wanted to prevent her husband from benefiting from her government pension fund after their divorce.
A highly educated woman with a prominent position in provincial government failed to prove why her husband should forfeit the benefits of their marriage in community of property which includes their matrimonial house.
The couple was married in terms of customary law on December 26 1999 and later concluded a civil marriage on July 11 2000. In November 2000, they bought a property and the bond was registered on November 15 2021. The bond instalments were deducted from the wife’s bank account and the husband was contributing a sum of R2,000 to the wife for the said bond money. The bond was for a period of 20 years and has since been paid up.
Customary law wife entitled to bury her husband
The wife instituted divorce proceedings against the husband and made an application for the husband to forfeit the benefits of the marriage in community of property in respect of the parties' immovable property in Polokwane and the wife’s pension interests in the Government Employees Pension Fund (GEPF).
The same court ruled last month that the husband was to pay maintenance of R5,000 per month towards their child, starting this month.
On the issue of forfeiture, it was not in dispute that the parties met at the University of the North (now University of Limpopo) in 1989 and were studying towards a BEd degree. They both graduated in 1994.
The husband struggled to get employment in his line of studies and was employed by a bank in 1995 as a teller until 1996 when he was employed at South African Breweries (SAB) until 2004 when he resigned. He then started his own liquor business at Ga-Mothapo.
He rented premises for running a bar using the money he got from SAB. Within a year, the pub business collapsed. In 2006, he joined Xerox and is still employed there.
On the other hand, the wife was employed as a teacher at a college for training teachers just after completing the BEd degree in 1994. She later switched from teaching and joined the government where she, over the years, rose to the level of a director in the government. She holds several postgraduate qualifications and a master's degree. The husband has not gone beyond his bachelor's degree in education.
The basis for forfeiture in respect of the immovable property was that the husband was not making a meaningful contribution to the joint estate. Alternatively, he did make some contribution as and when he liked. This was, however, denied by the husband. He testified that during the times he was employed, he contributed towards the bond, assisted with handy work, was solely responsible for gardening and drove their three children to school throughout their schooling days.
He further stated that his salary has always been far less to that of the wife and that was the reason that his proportional contribution appeared smaller as compared to the wife's.
The basis for forfeiture in respect of the pension benefits was that the husband failed to improve himself academically so that he could attract better employment offers. Further, it was argued that the husband had several extra marital affairs with several women and the court was requested to consider this as a contributory factor to the breakdown of the marriage.
TINA HOKWANA | Court dismisses application to declare customary marriage valid
This was disputed by the husband and the court found that the wife failed to discharge her duty to prove infidelity or adultery on the husband’s part.
Acting judge, AJ Sikhwari, found that there was no evidence that the husband did not contribute to the financial position of the family and that he contributed according to his income which is almost 50% lower than the wife’s income.
The acting judge further pointed out that the husband’s failure to improve his academic qualification was irrelevant, especially when one considered that he did try to do an honours degree but did not go far. “Not all of us are academics but that does not make those who have no interests in academic qualifications to be mulcted with forfeiture if married to a spouse who is an academic achiever of some note,” the judge concluded.
In the circumstances, the wife failed to prove that the husband should forfeit the benefits of their marriage in community of property. The husband is therefore entitled to claim 50% of the wife’s pension interests.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending
Related articles
Latest Videos