A man who married four women failed to prove his claim to 50% of his first wife’s pension interest, but the High Court in Johannesburg decided he was entitled to an equal share of the rest of their joint estate.
The man, who was the plaintiff, identified as “SPM”, instituted the divorce proceedings, claiming a decree of divorce and a division of the joint estate, as well as 50% of his first wife’s pension interest with the Government Employees Pension Fund (GEPF).
His first wife (the defendant), identified as “VRM”, filed a counterclaim and claimed a decree of divorce and forfeiture of the benefits of the marriage in community of property.
SPM and VRM were married in 1993. SPM subsequently married three women in 2002, 2010, and 2018, respectively. The man testified that he entered these three marriages with the consent of his first wife.
His first wife testified to the contrary, saying she consented only to the second marriage. But she confirmed that she bought wedding dresses for the third and fourth wives.
The findings the High Court was called upon to make included:
- When the man and his first wife married, and the nature of the marriage relationship.
- When the first marriage was dissolved.
- Whether the first wife consented to all three subsequent marriages.
- Whether either party was entitled to an order for forfeiture.
Evidence does not favour consent
The Court found that the parties entered a civil marriage, not a customary marriage, in 1993.
The civil marriage was dissolved in 2005, but the parties continued to live as husband and wife, and at the time of the hearing, they were still husband and wife in terms of customary law. The marital regime was community of property.
Neither of the parties had shown or proved that a contract was concluded excluding certain property from the joint estate, or that an antenuptial contract was concluded.
The Court found that the first wife did not consent to her husband marrying his third and fourth wives.
SPM testified that VRM’s consent to marriages three and four was recorded in the church register. But he did not produce a copy of the register.
SPM’s third and fourth wives also testified that VRM consented in writing to the marriages. But they were similarly unable to produce proof.
Acting Judge Gregory Ally said the Court must be cautious in accepting evidence from wives three and four that favours that of the SPM because they were either married to or in a relationship with him.
VRM’s buying wedding dresses for the third and fourth wives was not proof that she consented to the marriages, the judge said. Her explanation was that she was saving on costs and did not want unreasonable amounts to be paid for the dresses. “This evidence was solicited from the defendant by the legal representative of the plaintiff and thus can and is admitted.”
Contributions to the joint estate not proved
The fact that the first wife did not consent to the third and fourth marriages did not end the inquiry as to whether she had proved that she was entitled to an order for forfeiture of the benefits of the marriage. She also had to show that her husband did not contribute to acquisition of the assets in the joint estate (immovable properties and motor vehicles), or she had to show that his contribution was less than hers, Acting Judge Ally said.
The Court was not satisfied that the parties had shown what each of them contributed to the joint estate. The Court said it was axiomatic that SPM made no contribution to his wife’s interest in the GEPF.
Acting Judge Ally said the first wife had proved that her husband committed “substantial misconduct” by marrying his third and fourth wives without her consent. She had also proved that he will benefit unduly if he is awarded half of pension interest. The Court therefore ordered that SPM must forfeit his half-share of the pension interest.
In respect of the rest of the joint estate, the judge said the immovable properties and the motor vehicles must remain in the joint estate and be divided equally between the parties.
The Court granted the decree of divorce and ordered each party to pay its own costs.
