Court dismisses woman’s bid to get everything and leave husband with 50% livestock
The North West High Court in Mahikeng has dismissed a pensioner’s application to amend her divorce pleadings after finding that her claims for an equal share of livestock and forfeiture of her husband’s half-share were contradictory.
In a recent legal ruling, the North West High Court in Mahikeng dismissed a pensioner's attempt to modify her divorce plea to claim an equal split of their livestock, while simultaneously demanding her husband give up his half of their shared estate. The case involved a married couple who entered into a community of property marriage in August 1983. The wife initiated divorce proceedings in April 2024, requesting a divorce decree and a standard division of their joint estate.
However, the husband contested her request for a standard division, presenting evidence that two properties initially thought to be part of their joint estate were, in fact, excluded from it. The husband's late mother had, in her will, instructed that these properties be omitted from any future marriage estate. The wife then sought to amend her claim, proposing that the husband forfeit his 50% share in a property located at Unit 6, Mmabatho, while retaining ownership of her car and a share of their livestock.
The livestock in question included 10 cows, 64 goats, and an unspecified number of chickens, all of which were located in Mocoseng Village.
The husband objected to the proposed amendment, arguing that it was made in bad faith and intended to delay the finalization of the divorce. He also claimed the amendment was vague and potentially embarrassing, making it susceptible to exception. However, the court found issues regarding the breakdown of the marriage and the merits of the forfeiture claim to be matters for the trial court to decide. The decisive issue at hand was the wording of the proposed amendments.
Judge Thabiso Masike noted that a party cannot adopt two contradictory positions in legal proceedings, as doing so would render their claim vague and embarrassing. The court held that allowing the amendment would render the particulars of claim incoherent. Consequently, the application for leave to amend the particulars of claim was dismissed, and the woman was ordered to pay the costs associated with her application.
The underlying divorce action has not been dismissed, and the court has scheduled the main trial for September 30, 2026, to be held in open court.
Written by urgent.news from IOL's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
