Vlok v Puchert NO and Another

The applicant and the deceased, Gerrit Jacobus Vlok, were married out of community of property in 1980, excluding accrual, in terms of an antenuptial contract. Throughout a 44-year marriage, the applicant, a pharmacist, earned substantial income, provided capital and savings, paid household and living expenses, managed the home, raised the children, assisted in business and farming ventures, and later cared for the deceased during a prolonged illness. Many investments and assets registered in the deceased’s name were funded by the applicant’s income and savings, although the deceased managed investments and achieved profits. Shortly before his death by suicide, the deceased transferred two properties from the applicant to himself without compensation and amended his will to largely exclude the applicant, bequeathing the residue of his estate to a testamentary trust for church-related child welfare purposes. After the deceased’s death, the applicant applied for a redistribution of the deceased’s estate under s 7(3) of the Divorce Act, relying on the Constitutional Court’s reading-in in EB v ER NO, which allows redistribution claims upon dissolution of marriage by death. The executor opposed the application, raising, inter alia, a non-joinder point and disputing the extent of the applicant’s contributions.

The court ordered the first respondent, as executor, to transfer 65% of the assets in the estate of the late Gerrit Jacobus Vlok to the applicant during the winding-up of the estate. The executor was ordered, de bonis propriis, to pay the costs of the non-joinder point on an attorney-and-client scale with counsel’s costs on Scale C, and the estate was ordered to pay the costs of the application on an attorney-and-client scale with counsel’s costs on Scale C.

The judgment is one of the first High Court applications of the Constitutional Court’s decision in EB v ER NO, confirming that redistribution claims under s 7(3) of the Divorce Act are available when a marriage out of community of property is dissolved by death. It illustrates the breadth of the court’s discretion in redistribution matters, affirms that long-term indirect and non-financial contributions can justify substantial redistribution, and underscores judicial intolerance for abusive or repetitive procedural points by executors. The case also provides guidance on costs de bonis propriis against legal practitioners acting as executors.