A wife turned to Gauteng High Court (Johannesburg) for an urgent order interdicting her estranged husband from selling their multi-million rand former matrimonial home.

The Star reports the husband opposed the application, claiming the Midrand property belonged to his closed corporation and not to him. But the court did not agree with his argument.

Acting Judge JL Khan said it was clear the husband and his closed corporation were one entity – his alter ego, and interdicted him and the closed corporation from selling the property.

The wife said while they were married out of community of property – with the application of the accrual system – half of what they had accumulated during their marriage was hers.

She argued that the husband – in alienating the property before the accrual claim –prejudiced her claim as it depleted the assets before the determinative date of the accrual claim, thereby reducing, if not extinguishing, the difference in accrual between the two estates.

She said the property was a major asset in the marriage and that she had contributed her finances and project management skills in building the house on the property. The property cost around R12m to build and was on sale for R11.6m.

The wife submitted that the property was being sold below cost to quickly dispose of it and to dissipate the proceeds of the sale, to her prejudice.

The husband did not set out his financial position or the reason for the sale of the property.

Khan said it was not known whether the husband would be in a position to pay his wife the difference in the accrual should the property be sold and the proceeds be used by him.

The Star notes the monetary value of the wife’s estate was recorded at R2.8m and that of the husband, R5.3m.

Khan said it was common cause that the property served as the marital home of the parties until such time as the wife moved out. Even though the property was registered in the name of the closed corporation, there was no indication before court that it was ever used as a business.

In any event, Khan said, the husband was the sole shareholder and sole director of the closed corporation.

Khan said it appeared to the court that at the time when the antenuptial contract was signed, the husband considered the property to be his property and not that belonging to the closed corporation.

‘It is only now that the relationship between the parties has soured that the first respondent is relying on the legal fiction to exclude the property from the accrual of the parties,’ he said.

Khan said the facts pointed in favour of the wife who would be prejudiced if the property was sold and the proceeds squandered.

Full report in The Star

Judgment