Court Grants UK Woman’s Bid to Divorce Her Younger SA Husband and Recoup Over R1 Million
In a striking legal victory, the Johannesburg High Court has ruled in favor of a British woman seeking to end her marriage with her South African husband—17 years her junior—and ordered him to forfeit more than R1 million in funds he received from her during their marriage.
The judgment, handed down electronically by Acting Judge Lungile Bhengu, marks the conclusion of a contentious divorce battle that unfolded over several months. The ruling not only dissolved the international couple’s marriage but also addressed a detailed dispute over the division of assets, including property, motor vehicles, and investment funds.
The Background: A Cross-Border Romance Turned Sour
The parties, referred to in court papers as JC-T (the plaintiff) and ST (the defendant), were married on 30 September 2016 in community of property—a marital regime in South Africa where spouses share all assets and liabilities acquired before and during the marriage.
According to evidence presented in court, the couple first met and fell in love in Windhoek, Namibia in 2014. At the time, JC-T was in the process of dissolving a previous marriage of 18 years, which ultimately granted her a sizable financial settlement. The relationship with ST flourished quickly, and by 2015, the couple had relocated to South Africa to begin a new life together.
Despite the apparent harmony in their early days, cracks soon began to show. By June 2019, less than three years into the marriage, JC-T filed for divorce, citing an irretrievable breakdown of the relationship. She also initiated legal proceedings to reclaim substantial assets she claimed to have funded during the marriage.
The Assets in Dispute
At the heart of the dispute were three main assets:
- A property in Oakland Park, Johannesburg, valued at R2.7 million, purchased with proceeds from JC-T’s Namibian property sale.
- An Audi A3 motor vehicle, gifted by JC-T to the defendant during their courtship.
- An FNB 32 Day Flexi Investment account, initially funded with more than R1 million from JC-T’s previous divorce settlement but controlled entirely by ST.
JC-T argued that these assets were unjustly retained by ST, particularly given that they were acquired through her direct financial contributions. In support of her case, she presented records showing that the investment account was managed solely by ST, with her only receiving notifications of activity.
Court Proceedings and Arguments
The case was first heard in the divorce court from 29 to 31 July 2024, with closing arguments presented on 16 September 2024. Both parties agreed the marriage had broken down irretrievably. However, they sharply disagreed on who should forfeit what in the division of their joint estate.
JC-T’s claim focused on Section 9(1) of the Divorce Act 70 of 1979, which allows a court to order a spouse to forfeit the patrimonial benefits of a marriage in community of property, particularly when one spouse has unduly benefited from the union.
ST, on the other hand, filed a counterclaim, seeking not only a divorce decree but also a declaration that JC-T forfeit the very same assets she was attempting to reclaim, including two motor vehicles—an Audi A3 and a Colt L200—in his possession. He argued that he was equally entitled to these items as part of the joint estate.
Judgment: Divorce Granted, Counterclaim Dismissed
In a detailed ruling, Judge Bhengu found in favor of the plaintiff, granting her the divorce decree and ordering forfeiture of the investment funds amounting to R1,076,859.93 from ST’s FNB bank account. These funds, the judge emphasized, had originated from JC-T and were placed under ST’s exclusive control.
Furthermore, the court ruled that while the remainder of the joint estate would be divided equally, an adjustment should be made in JC-T’s favor to compensate for the assets she brought into the marriage.
“The evidence clearly demonstrates that the plaintiff contributed significantly to the joint estate, both before and during the marriage. She purchased the marital home and vehicles and deposited significant funds into the defendant’s account. It would be inequitable for the defendant to retain these benefits following such a short marriage,” Bhengu stated.
The court also dismissed ST’s counterclaim in full, finding no legal basis to support his assertions that JC-T should forfeit any of the contested assets.
A Cautionary Tale in South African Divorce Law
The case underscores the legal complexities of marriages in community of property, particularly when significant financial contributions are made by one spouse. While such a regime implies equal ownership, South African law allows courts to forfeit benefits in cases where retaining them would be deemed grossly unfair.
What makes this ruling particularly notable is the cross-national dynamic: a UK citizen claiming her financial interests were abused after marrying a South African partner. It also reflects the increasing trend of asset-related disputes in divorce proceedings—a trend mirrored in the broader statistics.
According to Statistics South Africa (Stats SA), 20,196 divorces were recorded in 2022—an increase of 10.9% from the previous year. With the cost of living rising and property ownership more common among women, disputes over asset division are becoming a frequent feature in divorce cases.
Lessons for International and Local Couples
This case sends a strong message to both international and local couples: Understand your marital regime before signing any marriage contract. It also emphasizes the importance of legal representation when entering or dissolving a marriage, especially when significant assets or cross-border dynamics are involved.
For British citizens marrying in South Africa—or vice versa—it is advisable to seek legal counsel in both jurisdictions to understand how assets may be treated under different legal systems.
Moreover, this ruling affirms the discretion courts have in ensuring that marital property settlements are fair and do not unduly enrich one party at the expense of the other.
Conclusion
In a highly publicized judgment, the Johannesburg High Court has reinforced the principle that marriage does not entitle one party to unjust enrichment, even in a marriage governed by community of property. By granting the UK plaintiff’s divorce application and ordering the forfeiture of over R1 million in funds, the court has drawn a clear line in favor of financial fairness and accountability.
For couples navigating the complexities of divorce—especially in international unions—this case serves as both a warning and a reminder: the law is not blind to exploitation, and justice can be achieved with the right legal approach.
Need Help Navigating Divorce?
If you're facing the stress and uncertainty of divorce, our experienced Divorce Solicitors are here to guide you every step of the way. Whether you're dealing with financial settlements, child arrangements, or simply need expert legal advice, Parachute Law offers compassionate, clear, and practical support tailored to your situation.
Get expert divorce help now – speak to a solicitor today
