The parties were married in community of property in December 1995. The husband instituted divorce proceedings in 2015. He initially sought forfeiture of patrimonial benefits based on alleged infidelity, but later abandoned that claim and instead claimed 50% of the wife’s pension interest in the Government Employees Pension Fund (GEPF). Prior to the divorce, the husband had withdrawn his own GEPF pension payout of approximately R2.4 million and used part of it for household expenses, renovations, debts and maintenance, but allegedly failed to fully account for the balance. The wife contended that allowing the husband to share in her pension interest would unduly benefit him and sought forfeiture of his entitlement to her pension interest. The regional court granted a decree of divorce with division of the joint estate and awarded the husband 50% of the wife’s pension interest. On appeal, the High Court substituted that order with a forfeiture of all patrimonial benefits by the husband, relying on findings of infidelity and domestic violence. The husband appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
The appeal was upheld. The High Court’s order was set aside and replaced with an order dismissing the appeal from the regional court. The decree of divorce with division of the joint estate and the appellant’s entitlement to 50% of the respondent’s pension interest was restored. Each party was ordered to pay their own costs.
The case clarifies the onus of proof in forfeiture claims involving pension interests and reaffirms that pension interests are deemed part of the joint estate. It underscores that forfeiture under section 9 of the Divorce Act requires proof of undue benefit and cannot be granted on unpleaded or unrelied-upon grounds. The judgment also reinforces limits on appellate interference with discretionary and factual findings of trial courts.