Factual Matrix: A Marriage Marred by Infidelity and Deception
The parties entered into a marriage in community of property on 19 November 2015, with a significant age disparity – the appellant being approximately 30 years old whilst the respondent was 57. Their marriage produced one child born on 18 March 2016, but the marriage would prove to be tumultuous and relatively short-lived.
The first significant breakdown occurred when the appellant left the common household on 20 September 2019, though she returned during 2020. However, any reconciliation was short-lived as divorce proceedings were instituted in June 2021. The final separation occurred in October 2021 when the appellant departed the matrimonial home after the respondent allegedly threatened to shoot her.
What emerged during the proceedings painted a picture of systematic deception by the appellant. She had engaged in extramarital affairs that resulted in two children born out of wedlock – the first on 3 February 2019 and the second on 3 June 2022. This timeline revealed that the appellant’s adulterous conduct commenced as early as 2018, merely three years into the marriage.
The appellant’s deception extended beyond the affairs themselves. She brazenly claimed maintenance from the respondent for both children born out of wedlock, insisting they were his biological children. Only when the respondent demanded DNA testing was the truth revealed – neither child was his. Perhaps most damning was the appellant’s conduct at the Maintenance Court, where she testified under oath that the children were the respondent’s, constituting perjury.
Throughout the marriage, the appellant remained unemployed, with the respondent shouldering all financial responsibilities. He funded household improvements, furniture, daily living expenses, and even the construction and furnishing of a three-bedroom house built by the appellant. The evidence revealed a pattern where the appellant would disappear with the respondent’s bank card whilst consorting with other men, using his financial resources for her own benefit.
The respondent’s alleged physical misconduct, including inserting his fingers into the appellant’s vagina to check for evidence of infidelity, occurred as a response to discovering her adulterous behaviour. Whilst inexcusable, the court noted this conduct must be viewed in the context of the appellant’s prior substantial misconduct that had already irreparably damaged the marriage.
The Legal Framework for Forfeiture of Patrimonial Benefits under Section 9 of the Divorce Act
The law governing forfeiture of patrimonial benefits represents a departure from the general principle that spouses married in community of property share equally in the joint estate upon divorce. Section 9(1) of the Divorce Act, 70 of 1979 provides the court with discretionary power to order forfeiture where specific criteria are met.
The High Court in T.S v M.L.S (5483/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 289 (19 March 2024) comprehensively outlined the purpose of forfeiture as ensuring that a person does not benefit from a marriage which they have intentionally broken down. The provision serves as a mechanism to prevent a blameworthy party from enjoying patrimonial benefits to which they would otherwise be entitled under the chosen matrimonial property system.
For a forfeiture order to be granted, the court must be satisfied that without such an order, one party will be unduly benefited in relation to the other. This determination requires consideration of three specific factors: the duration of the marriage, the circumstances which gave rise to the breakdown, and any substantial misconduct on the part of either party.
The Supreme Court of Appeal in Wijker v Wijker 1993 (4) SA 720 (AD) established that these three factors need not be considered cumulatively, with no single factor ranking above the others. This approach was subsequently confirmed in Botha v Botha 2006 (4) SA 144 (SCA) and Mashola v Mashola (022/2022) [2023] ZASCA 75, with the latter emphasising that the catch-all phrase permitting consideration of “any other factor” is conspicuously absent from the legislation.
The onus rests firmly on the party claiming forfeiture to establish both the nature and extent of the benefit to be forfeited. Where pension interests are concerned, Section 7(7) of the Divorce Act deems such interests to form part of the joint estate, with the extent of the benefit being the amount payable when the pension becomes due.
Grounds of Appeal: Challenging the Nexus Between Adultery and Financial Misconduct
The appellant’s challenge centred on a fundamental distinction between adultery as marital misconduct and financial misconduct warranting forfeiture. The appellant contended that the magistrate misdirected himself by treating infidelity as sufficient grounds for forfeiture, arguing that established authority requires proof of financial misconduct to sustain such an order.
Central to the appellant’s argument was the assertion that no evidence existed of her having squandered assets of the joint estate. The appellant maintained that speculation about future conduct – specifically how she might utilise assets post-divorce – cannot constitute a valid consideration for granting forfeiture. This challenge struck at the heart of the magistrate’s finding that the appellant would squander fifty percent of the pension interest with her alleged boyfriend.
The appellant’s counsel systematically dismantled the evidentiary foundation for the lower court’s conclusions. They argued there was no proof that any romantic relationship with the alleged boyfriend subsisted at the time of judgment, nor evidence that the appellant would squander pension benefits with this individual post-divorce. Even accepting arguendo that money had been spent on the alleged boyfriend, the appellant contended there was no evidence this involved the respondent’s funds in a manner justifying forfeiture.
A critical procedural challenge emerged regarding the magistrate’s failure to explain how the appellant would be unduly benefited absent a forfeiture order. The appellant argued this constituted a fundamental misdirection, as the court must specifically address this statutory requirement.
The appellant further contended that the magistrate failed to conduct the necessary balancing exercise required by the legislation. She argued her contributions to the joint estate, her residence at her parental home after leaving the matrimonial property, and the abuse she suffered at the respondent’s hands should have been weighed against her misconduct.
Most significantly, the appellant challenged the legal premise that giving birth out of wedlock could constitute substantial misconduct warranting forfeiture. She argued this was merely a consequence of infidelity and, standing alone, could not justify the draconian remedy of total forfeiture of pension benefits.
The High Court’s Analysis: Substantial Misconduct Beyond Mere Infidelity
The High Court firmly rejected the appellant’s characterisation of her conduct as mere adultery, finding instead a pattern of substantial misconduct that extended far beyond extramarital relations. Naude-Odendaal J recognised that whilst infidelity alone may not warrant forfeiture, the appellant’s conduct encompassed a web of deception, financial exploitation, and deliberate misrepresentation that fundamentally undermined the marriage.
The court’s analysis revealed that the appellant’s misconduct was multifaceted and calculated. Her systematic deception in falsely claiming maintenance for children she knew were not the respondent’s biological offspring demonstrated a willingness to exploit the legal system for personal gain. The perjury committed at the Maintenance Court elevated her conduct beyond relationship indiscretions to criminal behaviour involving the courts themselves.
In applying the three statutory factors, the court found compelling evidence across all criteria. Regarding duration, whilst the marriage lasted eight years on paper, the court recognised it functioned for only approximately two years intermittently. The circumstances giving rise to breakdown were unequivocally traced to the appellant’s adultery, which the court identified as the catalyst for all subsequent marital difficulties.
Most significantly, the court identified substantial misconduct in the appellant’s financial exploitation of the respondent. Her practice of disappearing with his bank card whilst consorting with other men, using his money to fund her affairs, and constructing property with his resources whilst conducting extramarital relationships demonstrated a calculated abuse of the matrimonial financial arrangements.
The court distinguished the respondent’s inappropriate physical conduct as reactive rather than causative, occurring only after discovery of the appellant’s betrayals. This temporal analysis was crucial in establishing that the appellant’s misconduct was the primary driver of marital breakdown.
The undue benefit analysis revealed that without forfeiture, the appellant would retain substantial pension interests despite her role in destroying the marriage through systematic deception and financial exploitation. The court concluded that allowing such retention would fundamentally offend principles of equity and justice underlying matrimonial property law.
Practice Points: Lessons for Practitioners in Forfeiture Applications
This judgment provides crucial guidance for practitioners navigating the complexities of forfeiture applications and highlights strategic considerations that can determine success or failure in such proceedings.
Evidence compilation proves paramount in forfeiture applications. Practitioners must meticulously document not merely the adultery itself, but the broader pattern of conduct that demonstrates substantial misconduct. The case illustrates how temporal sequencing of events can be decisive – establishing when misconduct commenced relative to marriage duration and when reactive conduct by the innocent spouse occurred can significantly influence judicial assessment.
Financial records assume critical importance beyond traditional divorce proceedings. Practitioners should secure comprehensive banking records, transaction histories, and evidence of asset utilisation to demonstrate how matrimonial resources were deployed. The appellant’s use of the respondent’s bank card whilst conducting affairs provided concrete evidence of financial exploitation that elevated her conduct beyond mere relationship indiscretions.
Pleading strategy requires careful consideration of cumulative misconduct rather than isolated incidents. Successful forfeiture applications demand presentation of interconnected conduct that collectively demonstrates substantial misconduct. Practitioners should avoid compartmentalising different aspects of misconduct and instead weave a coherent narrative showing systematic abuse of the matrimonial relationship.
Client counselling must address the harsh realities of forfeiture consequences. Total forfeiture represents a draconian remedy that can result in complete loss of substantial assets. Practitioners should ensure clients understand that conduct during marriage may have far-reaching financial consequences that extend well beyond emotional and reputational damage.
Opposition strategy, where viable, should focus on challenging the causal connection between alleged misconduct and undue benefit. The appellant’s unsuccessful arguments demonstrate that challenging individual aspects of conduct may prove insufficient where the overall pattern clearly establishes substantial misconduct.
Documentary evidence authentication becomes crucial, particularly regarding maintenance applications and court proceedings. The appellant’s perjury at the Maintenance Court provided compelling evidence of calculated deception that significantly strengthened the respondent’s case. Practitioners should secure certified court records and maintenance files where relevant to forfeiture proceedings.
Questions and Answers
What constitutes the legal test for forfeiture of patrimonial benefits under the Divorce Act?
The court must determine whether, absent a forfeiture order, one party will be unduly benefited in relation to the other. This assessment requires consideration of three factors: marriage duration, circumstances causing breakdown, and substantial misconduct by either party. The court exercises discretion in determining whether forfeiture should be granted wholly or partially.
Can adultery alone justify an order for forfeiture of patrimonial benefits?
No, mere adultery without additional aggravating factors typically cannot justify forfeiture. The conduct must constitute substantial misconduct that goes beyond ordinary marital infidelity. The misconduct must be of such nature and severity that allowing the guilty party to retain matrimonial benefits would result in undue benefit.
What is the evidential burden in forfeiture applications and who bears the onus?
The party claiming forfeiture bears the onus of proving both the nature and extent of the benefit to be forfeited. They must establish that substantial misconduct occurred and demonstrate how the other party would be unduly benefited if forfeiture is not granted. The standard requires clear and convincing evidence of the alleged misconduct.
Must all three statutory factors under section 9(1) be established cumulatively for forfeiture to be granted?
No, the Wijker case established that the three factors need not be considered cumulatively and no single factor ranks above others. Courts may grant forfeiture based on any combination of these factors, provided the overall assessment satisfies the undue benefit test.
How do courts determine what constitutes “substantial misconduct” warranting forfeiture?
Substantial misconduct requires conduct that goes beyond ordinary marital breakdown and demonstrates a pattern of behaviour that fundamentally undermines the marriage. This may include financial exploitation, systematic deception, criminal conduct, or behaviour that shows calculated abuse of the matrimonial relationship rather than isolated incidents.
Can pension interests held with pension funds be subject to forfeiture orders?
Yes, pension interests are deemed part of the joint estate for forfeiture purposes. The extent of forfeitable pension interest is the amount payable when the benefit becomes due. This applies to various pension funds including the Government Employees Pension Fund as demonstrated in this case.
What role does the duration of a marriage play in forfeiture determinations?
Marriage duration affects the court’s assessment of whether forfeiture is justified. Short marriages may suggest limited contribution by the guilty party, whilst longer marriages may indicate greater entitlement to benefits. However, the court considers functional duration rather than merely the legal duration of marriage.
Can conduct that occurs as a reaction to a spouse’s misconduct affect forfeiture applications?
Yes, but courts distinguish between causative and reactive misconduct. The timing and nature of conduct matters significantly. Misconduct that occurs in response to a spouse’s prior substantial misconduct may be viewed differently than conduct that causes marital breakdown, though it does not excuse inappropriate behaviour.
What constitutes financial misconduct sufficient to support a forfeiture application?
Financial misconduct includes systematic exploitation of matrimonial resources, using joint assets to fund extramarital relationships, deceptive claims for maintenance of children born from affairs, and patterns of behaviour showing calculated financial abuse of the matrimonial relationship rather than mere poor financial decisions.
Can courts consider anticipated future conduct when granting forfeiture orders?
Generally, courts focus on established past conduct rather than speculation about future behaviour. However, established patterns of misconduct may provide a basis for reasonable inferences about likely future conduct, particularly where such conduct demonstrates fundamental character defects affecting financial responsibility.
What is the significance of perjury in related proceedings for forfeiture applications?
Perjury in related proceedings such as maintenance applications demonstrates substantial misconduct beyond marital infidelity. It shows calculated deception involving court processes and elevates the misconduct to criminal behaviour, significantly strengthening the case for forfeiture by demonstrating systematic dishonesty.
Can total forfeiture of all patrimonial benefits be granted or must it be partial?
Courts may grant either total or partial forfeiture depending on the circumstances. Total forfeiture represents a draconian remedy reserved for cases involving serious substantial misconduct. The extent of forfeiture should be proportionate to the misconduct and the degree of undue benefit that would otherwise result.
What evidence is required to establish a pattern of substantial misconduct?
Evidence must demonstrate interconnected conduct rather than isolated incidents. This includes financial records showing misuse of matrimonial assets, documented deception in legal proceedings, evidence of systematic exploitation of the marriage relationship, and proof of calculated rather than impulsive misconduct.
How does the court balance competing misconduct by both spouses in forfeiture applications?
Courts must weigh the relative severity and causative nature of each spouse’s misconduct. The party whose misconduct primarily caused the marital breakdown may face forfeiture despite some reactive misconduct by the other spouse. The temporal sequence and proportionality of conduct influences this assessment.
What constitutes “undue benefit” for purposes of the statutory test?
Undue benefit arises where allowing equal sharing of matrimonial assets would be inequitable given one party’s substantial misconduct. This assessment considers whether retaining matrimonial benefits would effectively reward the guilty party for conduct that destroyed the marriage, creating an outcome that offends principles of equity and justice.
Written by Bertus Preller, a Family Law and Divorce Law attorney and Mediator at Maurice Phillips Wisenberg in Cape Town and founder of DivorceOnline and iANC. A blog, managed by SplashLaw, for more information on Family Law read more here. For free and useful Family Law tech applications visit Maintenance Calculator and Accrual Calculator.
DOWNLOAD THE JUDGEMENT HERE: