Cape Town - A man’s attempt to duck a divorce settlement order, in which he was ordered to pay just over R2 million for maintenance arrears costs, has failed in the the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa..
The man applied to the court for a stay on the warrant of execution on his property and averred to the court that the “entire warrant seems to be orchestrated” by his ex-wife.
When a sheriff attempted to execute the warrant, the man had told the sheriff he “has no money or disposable property sufficient to satisfy the judgment”.
However, Judge Leicester Adams in the judgment said the man’s claim that he was “impecunious is patently false” as the man, in his founding affidavit, stated he had “inherited some money from my father who passed away in 2015. Within a few weeks of inheriting, this warrant is served upon me.”
The two had divorced in September 1995 and the warrant of execution and the documents in support thereof indicated that an amount of R2 154 461.81 was due and payable by the ex-husband to his ex-wife and incorporated the settlement agreement, in respect of arrears maintenance for their daughter, now a qualified psychologist, born of their marriage.
As part of the settlement agreement, the man was liable for all educational expenses for his daughter from nursery school up to tertiary level.
However, the man questioned the costs to which his ex-wife produced a voluminous record of about 2000 pages, showing records for costs her ex-husband was liable for but failed to pay.
Judge Adams said: “The applicant questions the amount claimed in the warrant of execution against his property. I say that the applicant ‘questions’ the said amount, as against ‘disputing’ it, because, whilst he does not…unequivocally (deny) liability for the sums alleged by the first respondent to be owing by him, he does take issue with the fact that he was kept completely in the dark as to the incurrence of the expenses claimed.
“So, for example, he says... ‘Whatever amounts I had to pay after 2010 I have no knowledge of, as I was never contacted, never requested to pay anything and if either the respondent or (our daughter) had any claim against me, I can only assume that they had abandoned such a claim’.
“This is the general theme of the applicant’s response to the first respondent’s claim – he does not believe that he is liable, because, so he contends, he was never requested to make payment in all these however many years,” said Adams.
Judge Adams said the man had not made out a case for the stay of the warrant of execution.
“In my view, real and substantial justice requires that the application for the stay of execution be refused – to hold otherwise would result in an injustice.”
Cape Times