KSL v AL

The parties, married out of community of property with accrual, divorced in March 2019 with their accrual dispute postponed. During the pending divorce, the husband established a trust for the children and invested funds in a living annuity. In May 2021, after the divorce, he sold an immovable property. The wife, alleging that the husband’s estate showed greater accrual and that his conduct indicated dissipation of assets to defeat her accrual claim, sought an interim anti-dissipation interdict to preserve the net proceeds of the property sale pending determination of the accrual claim. The High Court granted the relief. The husband appealed, contending that the wife failed to establish a prima facie right and the requisite intention for anti-dissipation relief, and sought to introduce further evidence on appeal.

The appeal was upheld with costs (limited to one counsel). The application to submit further evidence was dismissed with costs. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the High Court order were set aside and replaced with an order dismissing the anti-dissipation application with costs.

The judgment reaffirms the binding authority of Knox D’Arcy on anti-dissipation interdicts, clarifying that intention to defeat a claim is ordinarily a required jurisdictional fact, including in matrimonial accrual disputes. It corrects divergent High Court approaches that applied a lesser threshold and underscores the non-admissibility of Rule 34 settlement offers as proof of liability. The case also confirms the appealability of interim interdicts under the constitutional interests of justice standard.