- Court rejects contempt claims from both spouses, finding neither proved wilful disobedience of a Rule 43 order.
- Husband ordered to pay R45 000 rental and R120 000 furniture contribution owed under the interim divorce order.
- Wife must return 10 household items, including a lounge suite, rocking chair and Big Green Egg to the matrimonial home.
A black lounge suite, a rocking chair and even a Big Green Egg barbecue became the unlikely centre of a bitter divorce dispute that played out in the High Court in Durban.
The dispute unfolded after both spouses accused each other of ignoring an earlier court order and removing furniture from their former family home. What began as a disagreement about unpaid obligations soon escalated into competing allegations of contempt and a detailed fight about which items had been taken from the matrimonial home.
Acting Judge L Pudifin-Jones ultimately dismissed both parties’ attempts to have the other declared in contempt of court. However, the court ordered the husband to pay outstanding amounts of R45 000 for April 2025 rental and R120 000 meant for furniture purchases, while also directing the wife to return 10 items she had taken from the matrimonial home.
The dispute arises from a February 2025 Rule 43 order, which regulates interim arrangements while the couple’s divorce proceedings continue.
Background to the Rule 43 dispute
The February 2025 order established temporary arrangements between the parties while their divorce case is still pending.
The order regulated the care and contact of the couple’s minor child and imposed several financial responsibilities on the husband while the litigation proceeds.
Under the order, the husband was required to pay R65 000 per month in cash maintenance, cover medical aid and medical expenses, and pay for the child’s education costs.
He was also obliged to contribute up to R45 000 per month in rent for his wife and their minor child after she vacated the matrimonial home in Ballito.
The order further dealt with household belongings inside the matrimonial home. The wife undertook not to remove bespoke furniture, art pieces and appliances from the house, although she was permitted to take specific items listed in an annexure to the order.
In addition, the husband had to provide R120 000 within seven days of the lease agreement being signed to allow the wife to purchase replacement furniture for the new home she would establish for herself and the child.
The litigation began when the wife alleged that the husband had failed to comply with those financial obligations under the order.
Arguments about unpaid rental and furniture costs
The wife approached the court urgently in June 2025, seeking to have the husband declared in contempt of court. By the time the matter was argued, the dispute had narrowed to two payments, which the wife said remained outstanding.
The first concerned R45 000 in rental for April 2025. The husband argued that he had not received the signed lease agreement until May 2025 and believed he was therefore not obliged to pay rent before the wife vacated the matrimonial home at the end of May.
Judge Pudifin-Jones rejected that interpretation of the earlier order and held that the obligation to pay the April rental existed regardless of when the husband received the document. “The respondent was obliged, under the February 2025 order, to pay the April 2025 rental,” the judge said.
However, the court concluded that the evidence did not establish deliberate disobedience of the court order. The judge explained that there was sufficient doubt about the husband’s conduct to justify refusing the contempt application.
“There is sufficient doubt raised by the respondent regarding his conduct that I cannot find that the respondent was in contempt.”
The second dispute concerned the R120 000 furniture contribution which the husband admitted he had not paid. He argued that the amount should be set off against expenses the wife allegedly incurred using his credit card and further claimed that she had breached the court order by removing furniture from the matrimonial home.
The court rejected the set off argument, explaining that the obligations created by the earlier order were maintenance obligations which could not simply be balanced against other debts.
“As regards set off, the orders in the February 2025 order are maintenance orders which are not liable to be set off against other debts,” Judge Pudifin-Jones held.
Counter accusations about furniture taken from the home
The conflict escalated further when the husband launched a counter-application accusing the wife of contempt. He alleged that she had removed numerous items from the matrimonial home in violation of the earlier court order and without his consent.
According to the husband, the furniture removed from the home exceeded R630 000 in value. He based this estimate on photographs of the house taken after renovations in 2020 and a comparison with the items that remained in the property.
The wife strongly disputed that figure and described it as exaggerated. She argued that many of the items were either personal belongings, gifts received during the parties’ long relationship or furniture she needed to establish a home for herself and the minor child after leaving the matrimonial property.
She further claimed that many of the items were old and estimated their value at about R43 570, far lower than the amount alleged by the husband.
The court found that the parties’ affidavits revealed serious disputes of fact regarding which items had been removed and who actually owned them. Judge Pudifin-Jones explained that these disputes could not be resolved on the papers before the court and would instead have to be determined during the divorce trial.
“These questions will form part of the issues to be resolved in the divorce trial in due course,” the judge said.
Court orders the return of 10 household items
During the hearing, the wife acknowledged that she had taken certain items while setting up a new home for herself and the minor child. She undertook to return 10 specific items to the matrimonial home, and the court decided to make that undertaking part of its order.
Acting Judge Pudifin-Jones explained that the court intended to hold the wife to that undertaking. “The applicant undertook that she would return ten items to the matrimonial home,” the judge said, adding that the court would enforce that commitment.
The items that must now be returned include a black lounge suite, coffee table, carpet, rocking chair, wicker chair, Big Green Egg, wooden carved chair, stone side table, gold side table and wood side table. The court also confirmed that the wife will still be allowed to access a storage facility to retrieve other belongings, provided she gives seven days’ notice.
No winner in the litigation
Although each side achieved some success in the application, the court ultimately concluded that neither had clearly prevailed. Both parties succeeded in part but also failed on several aspects of their claims, particularly the attempts to have the other declared in contempt of court.
Judge Pudifin-Jones concluded that, in those circumstances, it would be inappropriate to order either party to pay the other’s legal costs.
“It is appropriate that there is no order as to costs,” the court ruled. The broader disputes about ownership of the furniture and other property issues between the parties will now be determined during the divorce trial.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
Â
