- Two inherited properties were excluded from the couple’s joint estate after the husband produced his late mother’s will.
- The wife wanted an equal split of 10 cows, 64 goats, chickens and the couple’s cars.
- The High Court found the proposed amendment legally contradictory and dismissed it, ordering costs against the wife.
Livestock and inherited property are at the centre of a divorce dispute before the High Court in Mahikeng. The wife wants to split 10 cows, 64 goats and an unknown number of chickens, after two immovable properties were excluded from the couple’s joint estate.
Her husband inherited the properties from his late mother, whose will made it clear that they would not form part of any marriage in community of property. When this came to light, the wife changed her divorce claim to focus on the remaining assets, while also asking that her husband lose his share of the joint estate.
The couple married in community of property on 28 August 1983 and are both pensioners with no minor children. Divorce proceedings started in April 2024. The wife first asked for a divorce and division of everything they owned, but the husband decided to fight her claim.
Inherited properties change the estate
The turning point came when, during the discovery process, it was revealed that two immovable properties weren’t part of the joint estate after all. The husband’s late mother’s will specifically protected these assets from being included in any marriage estate.
After learning this, the wife gave up her claim to the inherited properties and applied under Rule 28 to change her divorce papers.
In her proposed amendment, the wife asked the court to share out the livestock acquired during the marriage equally. This included 10 cows, 64 goats and an unknown number of chickens, all kept at Mocoseng Village.
She also suggested that each person keep the car they already had. But in the same amendment, she also asked the court to order that her husband “forfeit, entirely, his entitled half share of the joint estate.”
‘The prayers… are contradictory’
The husband fought the amendment, saying it was brought in bad faith, would delay the divorce, and would make the pleadings confusing.
Acting Judge T Masike disagreed, saying those allegations should be dealt with at the divorce trial, not in the amendment application.
But the amendment failed because of the way it was worded. Judge Masike pointed out that the wife wanted to split the livestock equally but also wanted her husband to lose his entire share of the joint estate. “The prayers… are contradictory,” the judge said.
Judge Masike said a litigant cannot “blow hot and cold” by making two completely different legal claims in the same case, which made the amendment legally defective.
The judge dismissed the application for leave to amend, with costs. The divorce trial will continue in the High Court on 30 September 2026.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
