IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA 
(CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION)

CASE NO: 15658/2008

In the matter between:

and

JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON 17 NOVEMBER 2008

The respondent is a building contractor and director of three private companies in that industry. It is not in serious dispute on the papers that the industry, at least so far as it affects the operation of what I shall term his companies, is in particular difficulty at present, but equally it is not in issue that on his own showing his assets exceed RSmiHion, that his monthly income is of the order of R45 000 and that he has in the past not disclosed his full financial position to the applicant. In this application he has explained the unavailability of the companies' 2008 financial statements, but not the absence of those for preceding years.

The parties continue currently to live under the same roof with two children aged 10 and 9. There is also a 21-year old child in the family.

It is convenient to address the relief claimed in relation to the three main categories in dispute: interim maintenance; use of the Mercedes-Benz Vito minibus vehicle; and a contribution to the costs of the divorce trial proceedings.

As regards interim maintenance the argument for the respondent is that he continues to maintain the applicant and the two minor children, and that he tenders to maintain that position pending the resolution of the principal divorce proceedings. The applicant, it was argued, is not entitled to the order sought because this would be at odds with the fact that on the evidence, he is currently supporting her and the two minor children and is, as I have indicated, tendering to sustain that position.

As regards the vehicle, however, I am unpersuaded that the applicant requires the interim use of the Mercedes Benz minibus. As counsel for the respondent pointed out, he uses this is the course of his business, and moreover undertakes the burden of transporting the children to and from school. In all the circumstances it seems to me equitable that that state of affairs should continue.

Lastly there is the question of a contribution to costs. The respondent's stance is once more that he can afford nothing. Therefore, the implicit argument again runs, the applicant should receive nothing from him to make the divorce possible. That stance is not open to him; on his own say-so, his estate, as I have noted, is significant, and can meet the costs, even if this is at the unfortunate cost to itself of liquidation of capital assets best preserved intact. Liquidation of assets is the unfortunate consequence of the fact that he and the applicant find themselves embroiled in opposed, and therefore expensive, divorce proceedings. The respondent's uncontested lack of full disclosure expensive, divorce proceedings. The respondent's uncontested lack of full disclosure in the past, and the fact that his estate appears to be substantially entwined with his thee companies, with the likelihood of at ieast some forensic accounting investigation costed at a minimum of R30 000, unfortunately conduce to a larger cost contribution than might have been a position in a simpler matter.