- Phumeza Shoba’s application for interim maintenance and legal costs was dismissed by the High Court.
- The court found she failed to fully disclose her income, property ownership and other financial information relevant to her claim.
- Shoba was ordered to pay the application costs after the court criticised her lack of honesty during the proceedings.
Phumeza Shoba has lost her bid for interim maintenance and legal costs against estranged husband Mnqobi “Shota” Shoba after the High Court in Johannesburg found that she failed to fully disclose her financial position.
Acting Judge S Van Aswegen dismissed Shoba’s application and ordered her to pay the costs after finding that important information about her income, assets and financial circumstances had not been disclosed.
Marriage, music and financial hardship
According to the judgment, the couple married in January 2014 out of community of property subject to the accrual system. Their son was later diagnosed with bilateral retinoblastoma, a form of eye cancer that resulted in visual impairment.
Judge Van Aswegen described the parties as talented entertainers who experienced significant professional challenges as the music industry changed and work opportunities became increasingly difficult to secure.
Shoba told the court that she became financially dependent on her husband after stepping away from other work opportunities and later working in his businesses. She claimed that she earned at least R100 000 per month as manager of his companies before allegedly losing her position after divorce proceedings were instituted.
She portrayed herself as unemployed and struggling financially, telling the court that she had been forced to rely on credit cards, loans and borrowed money to survive. She sought maintenance for herself and the child, as well as a contribution towards her legal costs.
Shota disputed her version and argued that she had failed to provide a truthful account of her financial circumstances.
Black Coffee’s role emerges
One of the more striking aspects of the judgment was the evidence relating to internationally renowned DJ and producer Black Coffee.
According to Shota, the family experienced severe financial hardship after their son’s diagnosis and during periods when both parties struggled to earn a stable income.
The court heard that Black Coffee stepped in to assist the family in numerous ways. According to the evidence, he helped with medical expenses, school fees, housing costs and vehicles. Shota said his friend also assisted him professionally by including him on international tours and helping him gain exposure that eventually led to overseas work opportunities.
The judgment records that Black Coffee confirmed many of these contributions in a supporting affidavit. The involvement of Black Coffee is notable given that the Grammy Award-winning artist is himself embroiled in long-running divorce litigation that has generated significant public attention.
Shota told the court that the assistance was not a loan and did not arise from any formal business arrangement but was simply an act of friendship during a difficult period in the family’s life.
Court finds serious disclosure problems
The central issue before the court was not whether Shota had money available to pay maintenance, but whether Shoba had properly disclosed her own financial circumstances.
Judge Van Aswegen found several inconsistencies between Shoba’s court papers, her Financial Disclosure Form and the documentary evidence before the court.
In her Financial Disclosure Form, she described herself as a freelance artist and indicated that she had earned no income during the relevant financial year. However, in her application she alleged that she had been earning at least R100 000 per month before her dismissal from Shota’s businesses.
The court also noted evidence showing that she received substantial income from her work on MultiChoice Mzansi Wethu’s programme Abandoned during 2025. The judgment referred to payments totalling approximately R262 000 received between April and May 2025.
Judge Van Aswegen said, “This court cannot assess the applicant’s financial circumstances because she failed to make full and honest disclosure of her income.”
The court found that this omission directly contradicted her portrayal of herself as unemployed and financially dependent.
Questions over property and expenses
The judgment also scrutinised Shoba’s disclosures regarding the family’s home. While her Financial Disclosure Form suggested that she effectively held only a partial interest in the property, documents before the court showed that the house was registered solely in her name and that the bond had been fully settled.
Judge Van Aswegen found that this information was important because a maintenance court must have a complete picture of a person’s assets and financial means before determining whether support is required.
The court also questioned the dramatic increase in Shoba’s claimed monthly expenses. According to the judgment, her Financial Disclosure Form reflected monthly expenses of about R44 876. However, only a short time later, she claimed expenses of R87 000 per month.
The judge noted that no satisfactory explanation had been provided for the difference. Shota also challenged several expenses reflected in bank statements, including transport costs, takeaway purchases and gambling-related expenditure.
Judge stresses duty of honesty
Judge Van Aswegen used the case to emphasise the importance of honesty in Rule 43 proceedings, which provide temporary relief while divorce cases are pending.
The judge quoted previous authority, warning that applicants seeking interim relief must make complete and truthful disclosure of their financial affairs.
The judgment quoted an earlier court decision, which held, “Any false disclosure or material non-disclosure would mean that he or she is not before the court with ‘clean hands’ and on that ground alone the court will be justified in refusing relief.”
The judge also referred to another warning from previous case law that “such conduct, whatever the motivation behind it, is dishonourable and should find no place in judicial proceedings.”
Applying those principles to the facts before the court, Judge Van Aswegen found that Shoba had not met the required standard. “The applicant had an obligation to act in the utmost good faith, yet decided to portray a skewed picture of her financial reality,” the judge said.
Application dismissed with costs
The court ultimately found that it could not properly assess either Shoba’s needs or the needs of the parties’ child because material information had not been disclosed.
Judge Van Aswegen said, “The applicant has selectively disclosed facts in an attempt to establish need, but her failure to make full disclosure means that all relevant facts are not before this court… The applicant had failed to establish that she and the child are entitled to maintenance as she has sketched a distorted reality of her means and their needs.”
As a result, the maintenance application was dismissed. The court also dismissed Shoba’s request for a contribution towards legal costs, finding that the same disclosure failures made it impossible to properly assess that claim.
In a final criticism of the applicant’s conduct, Judge Van Aswegen remarked, “The applicant’s lack of disclosure is conduct which should not be condoned in litigation.”
The application was dismissed in its entirety, and Shoba was ordered to pay Shota’s legal costs, including the costs of counsel on Scale B.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
