Rule 43 in Action: Deciphering Court Orders on Contribution to Costs and Attorney-Client Scale Cost Orders in Divorce Cases.

L.S.P. v R.S.P (2014/2941) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1281 (9 November 2023)

Summary of the Case

Introduction and Background

  • Rule 43 Application: The plaintiff (Applicant) had filed a Rule 43 application in an ongoing divorce case, seeking urgent relief. She requested condonation for non-compliance with court rules and a contribution of R 711,337.00 from the defendant (Respondent) towards her legal costs.
  • Divorce Proceedings History: The divorce proceedings were initiated in January 2014. The couple, married out of community of property and with an antenuptial contract, had two minor children. The trial, initially set for March 2018, was postponed several times and was rescheduled for November 2023.
  • Previous Litigations: The divorce process was marked by acrimony, leading to two Rule 43 applications. The first was related to children’s matters, and the second aimed to prevent the defendant from mismanaging his pension fund assets.

Plaintiff’s Financial Position

  • Living Arrangements and Income: The plaintiff resided with her children at her parents’ home in Durban, as she could not afford her own accommodation. She received R 3,000.00 per child in maintenance.
  • Financial Strain: Her income was R 46,327.79, but her expenses exceeded this, leading to a monthly shortfall of R 6,500.00. She had sold personal assets and was facing legal action from her attorneys for unpaid fees.
  • Assets and Liabilities: The plaintiff had no immovable property, a negative bank balance, no investments, and owed substantial amounts to her attorneys and on a credit card.

Defendant’s Financial Position

  • Employment and Health: The defendant was unemployed due to a severe spinal cord injury from a biking accident, resulting in paralysis and significant medical expenses.
  • Financial Status: Despite his health and employment status, he possessed assets worth R 4,573,173.00, including trust funds, property equity, and positive bank balances. However, he faced a monthly financial shortfall.


  • Plaintiff’s Request for Legal Cost Contribution: The plaintiff argued that without the defendant’s contribution, she would face extreme prejudice and irreparable harm in the divorce trial.
  • Defendant’s Ability to Pay: Despite his health challenges and unemployment, the defendant’s financial resources appeared stable, with considerable assets and income sources.

Defendant’s Financial Transactions

Loans and Business Involvement: The defendant had granted an interest-free loan of R 2.9 million to his girlfriend on 20 October 2023. Despite previously denying involvement, he was the sole director of Body 20 Dainfern Square. He had loaned R 3,453,000.00 to this company in 2018 and another R 500,000.00 in 2011.

Bank Transactions Post-Accident: Between January 2020 and December 2022, after his accident, the defendant received significant sums in his Standard Bank current account. By 3 January 2023, this account had a positive balance of R 575,947.52. Additional deposits of R 99,900.00 and R 40,000.00 were made into this account in 2023. The defendant also had a Standard Bank Home Loan account and an analysis of the account showed that there had been transactional activity into that account. On 01 March 2019 the account had an opening balance of R 728 661.50. On the 23 March 2020 an amount R 400 000.00 was transferred into this account. 

Historical Overview of Legal Framework for Contribution Towards Legal Fees in Matrimonial Cases

  • Historical Context of the Claim: The claim for a contribution towards legal fees in matrimonial cases was historically unique, based on the duty of support between spouses. It was not intended to provide an advantage in litigation but to ensure fair representation.
  • Principles Established in Past Judgments: In Van Rippen v Van Rippen (1949), the court had exercised discretion in determining the quantum of contribution towards legal costs. The primary objective was to enable the spouse, traditionally the wife, to adequately present her case. The court considered the financial positions of both parties and the issues involved in the litigation. The principle was that the solicitor for the applicant might not have been fully secured for fees in advance, but the court aimed to determine an amount necessary for adequate representation.
  • Adaptation to Gender Neutrality and Contemporary Application: Despite the historical context focusing on wives, these principles were adapted to apply to both genders in contemporary settings, acknowledging ongoing gender disparities.
  • Roots in Roman-Dutch Law and Reciprocal Duty of Support: As restated in AF v MF (2019), the claim for contribution towards costs in matrimonial actions had its origins in Roman-Dutch procedure. It was grounded in the reciprocal duty of support between spouses, encompassing legal proceeding costs.
  • Emphasis on Equality in Past Litigation: The court had emphasised the significance of ‘equality of arms’ in divorce litigation. A marked imbalance in financial resources could have led to unfair settlements, with the wealthier spouse potentially overpowering the other. Courts were obligated to ensure that spouses without means were provided the necessary resources to present their cases effectively, upholding constitutional rights to equal protection and access to courts.
  • Impact on Dignity and Right to Support in Historical Cases: The right to dignity was impacted when a spouse lacked the means to litigate. The court was tasked with protecting the dignity of a financially disadvantaged spouse by ordering a contribution to costs, enabling them to repay debts incurred for legal expenses. This approach aligned with the primary duty of support owed between spouses, ensuring that a spouse without means could seek financial support for litigation costs from the more affluent spouse.

Analysis of Financial Positions and Court’s Decision on Contribution to Legal Costs in a Matrimonial Case

Court’s Role in Determining Contribution: The court was tasked with determining the necessary amount for the applicant to adequately present their case. This involved an objective assessment of the financial positions of both parties.

Plaintiff’s Financial Struggles: The plaintiff’s financial situation was described as dire, with her resources being limited to her salary and maintenance received from the defendant. The court acknowledged her honest disclosure and noted that the delays in finalising the divorce had exacerbated her financial difficulties.

Defendant’s Stable Financial Position: In contrast, the defendant’s financial status appeared stable, evidenced by multiple bank accounts with considerable positive balances. The court noted the defendant’s failure to address evidence of his strong financial position, including recent transactions such as the interest-free loan to his girlfriend.

Defendant’s Asset Dissipation and Inheritance: The defendant was found to have dissipated assets, leading to an anti-dissipation order against him. He also failed to convincingly deny being an heir to his mother’s will. Despite his substantial medical expenses due to his health condition, the court found that he had not disclosed the sources of large sums deposited into his accounts.

Court’s Conclusion on Defendant’s Ability to Pay: Acknowledging the defendant’s health state and medical bills, the court was satisfied that he was capable of contributing to the plaintiff’s legal costs. The plaintiff’s inability to fund the divorce litigation was evident, leading to the court’s decision that the defendant should contribute to her legal costs.

Analysis of Prolixity and Court’s Decision on Legal Costs in a Matrimonial Case

  • Defendant’s Complaint of Prolixity: The defendant criticised the plaintiff for submitting voluminous documents for the application. The court recognised the need to discourage excessive documentation but emphasised a practical approach to avoid denying legitimate rights or procedural entitlements.
  • Court’s Stance on Prolixity: The issue of prolixity was addressed in the case of E v E; R v R; M v M, where it was ruled that affidavits in Rule 43 applications should only contain relevant material. The court cannot dismiss an application solely based on prolixity but can strike off irrelevant material and make appropriate cost orders.
  • Spilg J’s Remarks on Evidence Sufficiency: The court referenced Spilg J’s opinion that while many Rule 43 applications require succinct affidavits, a rigid approach may not always serve the best interests of the child in maintenance determinations. The court dismissed the argument to strike off the application for prolixity.
  • Court’s Findings and Orders:
    1. Plaintiff’s Financial Inadequacy: The court was satisfied that the plaintiff lacked sufficient means, while the defendant was in a better financial position to contribute to her litigation costs.
    2. Dismissal of Defendant’s Counterclaim: The court found that the defendant’s counterclaim must fail.
    3. Limitation of Rule 43(6) Application: The court was not convinced that it could grant the relief sought by the plaintiff in her second prayer under Rule 43(6).
    4. Final Orders:
      • The defendant was directed to pay R 711,337.00 towards the cost of the pending divorce trial.
      • The plaintiff’s second prayer was dismissed.
      • The defendant’s counterclaim was dismissed.
      • The defendant was ordered to pay the costs of the application on an attorney and client scale.

Summarised by Bertus Preller, a Family Law and Divorce Law attorney at Maurice Phillips Wisenberg in Cape Town. A blog, managed by SplashLaw, for more information on Family Law read more here.