C.A v H.A

The applicant and respondent were married on 1 July 1995 out of community of property with inclusion of the accrual system. They have two adult children. On 17 May 2022, the applicant instituted divorce proceedings. In May 2022, the applicant vacated the marital home, and the parties have lived separately since. The applicant sought interim maintenance pending divorce under Rule 43 of the Uniform Rules of Court. She claimed she earned R13,518.00 per month, had assets consisting of paintings worth not more than R225,000.00, and stated she had no savings or other assets. She mentioned a 'small investment' from her father's inheritance. During argument, it emerged the applicant had not disclosed the specific amount of her inheritance. The court directed a supplementary affidavit, which revealed the applicant had inherited R803,945.02 from both parents, had invested R400,000.00 with Fairtree accruing interest, had two Capitec savings accounts (one with a balance of R25,392.09 at the time of the founding affidavit), and stood to inherit from her late mother's estate — facts all known to her when she deposed to the founding affidavit.

• Whether the applicant made full and frank disclosure of her financial position in her founding affidavit as required in Rule 43 applications
• Whether material non-disclosure and misstatements in a Rule 43 founding affidavit justify refusal of relief
• Whether a supplementary affidavit can cure material non-disclosures in the founding affidavit
• What the appropriate remedy is where an applicant fails to disclose material financial facts

The application was struck from the roll. Each party was ordered to pay its own costs.

In Rule 43 applications, an applicant bears a duty of utmost good faith (uberrimei fidei) requiring full, honest, and clear disclosure of all material facts regarding their financial affairs in the founding affidavit. A material misstatement or non-disclosure means the applicant does not come to court with 'clean hands', and on that ground alone the court is justified in refusing relief. A supplementary affidavit cannot cure fundamental non-disclosures contained in the founding affidavit when the undisclosed facts were within the applicant's knowledge at the time of deposing to the founding affidavit.

The court remarked that the applicant's conduct gave the impression that her financial position could be in a much better position than she revealed. The court also noted a general tendency in Rule 43 applications for parties to misstate their financial affairs — exaggerating expenses and understating income — and described the practice as distasteful, unacceptable, and deserving of censure. The court further stated that intentionally making a false statement under oath may constitute perjury or defeating the course of justice.

This case reinforces and applies the stringent duty of financial disclosure in Rule 43 interim maintenance applications. It affirms the principles in Du Preez v Du Preez that courts take a dim view of material non-disclosure in maintenance matters and that an applicant who suppresses material facts may be denied relief. It clarifies that a supplementary affidavit filed after the court's direction to quantify a specific item does not open the door to introduce entirely new material that was deliberately withheld from the founding affidavit. The case also illustrates the distinction between dismissing an application and striking it from the roll as remedies for non-disclosure.