A Johannesburg businessman and political activist has lost a high-profile divorce case in the Pretoria High Court. The court has ordered him to vacate the couple's R13 million home in Fourways and pay R40,000 monthly spousal maintenance until his ex-wife remarries. The names of the couple are being withheld to protect the privacy of their three children.
The settlement, reached on 29 November, concludes a protracted legal battle over the couple's estate. The husband had initially proposed selling the Fourways property and dividing the proceeds. However, the court rejected this proposal, prioritising the children's need for a stable home environment. The ruling ensures the children will remain in the family home with their mother.
The detailed settlement agreement outlines the financial responsibilities of the husband. Beyond the monthly spousal maintenance, he is obligated to provide R25,000 per month for each of their three sons. Furthermore, the wife will receive an annual payment of R200,000 for the children's extracurricular activities.
The settlement explicitly details the husband's obligation to fully disclose his assets: "In this premises, he is obligated to render the full particulars of the value of his estate on divorce, identify each asset, its value, the nature of any ability and extent of such liability, duly supported by documentary proof." This clause underscores the court's commitment to ensuring a fair and transparent division of assets.
The agreement also addresses parental responsibilities and access to the children. The children will reside with their mother in the Fourways mansion, with a parenting plan in place to facilitate regular contact with their father. The settlement stipulates specific visitation arrangements for the husband: "the husband shall be entitled to exercise contact with the minor child, For a period of four hours on a Tuesday, and weekends if properly coordinated between the parties, which contact shall commence in the afternoon and will collect the child from the wife."
The news crew contacted both the husband and wife for comment on the divorce proceedings. Both declined to comment, citing the private nature of the matter. This refusal to comment further fuels public interest in the details of the settlement, given the high-profile nature of the husband and the significant financial implications of the ruling.
