The Johannesburg High Court issued an injunction to prevent the Government Employees Pension Fund (GEPF) from repaying 50% of a man’s pension benefits, awaiting termination of the divorce. The court held that it was unusual to be recently fired, failing to deliver on his promise to increase child maintenance, and now it was able to offer objections to the wife’s court application.
The couple has been engaged in divorce lawsuits since November 2023, having been married in the property community. The wife argued that her husband’s recent firing left the GEPF and that her husband could deal with pension expenses recently unless the court intervened. She further claimed that despite prior commitment, the man failed to increase child maintenance payments for three minor children. Although the husband promised not to fulfill his pension, the wife expressed doubts, pointing out that he failed to fulfill his previous financial commitments.
The wife argued in her application that she was entitled to 50% of the joint property because they were married in the property community and that her husband might try to withdraw his pension, especially given the sudden nature of his sack.
The husband objected the application, claiming that his assets on the joint property would not be wasted in November 2024 and February 2025, and advised his wife’s application to abuse legal proceedings. However, the court did not believe his assurance, especially given that he had recently withdrawn similar causes regarding child maintenance.
The court noted that if the husband is 50% frozen, the husband did not show any significant bias and questioned why he had the resources to object to his wife’s application but could not provide an application to maintain the child. The judge concluded that the husband was unwise and approved an order to prevent GEPF from paying for pension funds. The husband was also ordered to pay for the application fee.
