The SCA emphasized that courts should not pronounce on claims or defences not presented in the pleadings.
Introduction:
In the Mashola
case (22/2022), the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) had to determine whether a
partial forfeiture order should be imposed on the husband’s pension
interest/benefit held by the Government Employee Pension Fund (GEPF) following
their divorce. This article discusses the legal principles involved in the case
and analyses the court's decision.
Background
and Evidence Presented:
During the
trial, it was revealed that the husband had engaged in a long-standing
extramarital affair, which had significant impacts on their marital estate. He
made minimal financial contributions to the joint estate and transferred assets
to his mistress. The wife had to resort to the maintenance court to compel her
husband to contribute to the maintenance of their children.
Legal
Principles Applicable:
The Divorce
Act contains three key provisions relevant to this case. Sections 7(7) and 7(8)
address the entitlement of spouses to a half share in each other's pension
interests, while section 9(1) deals with the forfeiture of benefits. In the Wijker
v Wijker case, the Appellate Division clarified the legal principles
relating to section 9(1), establishing two key steps for the court to consider.
Analysis of
the Decision:
The full court
dismissed Mrs Mashola's appeal, arguing that she had condoned her husband's
extramarital affair for nine years, which undermined her claim for a forfeiture
order. However, the SCA found that condonation was not raised in the pleadings
or during the trial before the High Court. The SCA emphasized that courts
should not pronounce on claims or defences not presented in the pleadings,
highlighting the misdirection of the full court in this case.
Furthermore,
the full court failed to apply the two-pronged approach outlined in the Wijker
case. The SCA held that the wife did not condone the extramarital relationship
on every interpretation of the facts. The court considered various factors, including
the humiliation caused by the affair being conducted publicly, the depletion of
the joint estate, the husband's financial support of his mistress at the
expense of his family, and Mrs Mashola's sole dependence on her salary.
Conclusion:
This judgment
underscores the importance of courts adhering to the principle of adjudicating
only on issues raised in the pleadings or during the trial. Pronouncing on
claims not presented by the litigants constitutes an impermissible misdirection.
In this case, the SCA upheld the appeal, finding that Mr. Mashola's substantial
misconduct and Mrs. Mashola's direct financial contributions to the joint
estate satisfied the requirements for a partial forfeiture order under section
9(1) of the Divorce Act.