Divorce settlement: Woman wants townhouse with no black neighbours

Share this article: Share Tweet Share Share Share Email Share

Pretoria - When a couple got divorced, the woman demanded that her ex-husband buy her a two bedroom townhouse in a complex in the Western Cape with no black neighbours. When he could not comply, she turned to the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria. But the man, who lives in Wierda Park, Centurion, said it was impossible to meet her demands to find a townhouse in a complex “where coloured or black people do not reside.” Mrs K turned to the court in a bid to force Mr K to comply with a financial agreement they had reached as part of their divorce settlement a number of years ago. She also asked Judge E Molahlehi to hold her ex-husband in contempt of court for not keeping his side of the deal.

While the man denied he was in contempt of court, he did not dispute that he had owed his former wife a property for more than 10 years.

His defence was that he tried to comply with her wishes and demands, but the two places he could afford to buy for her, she had rejected.

The woman is living in Durbanville, Cape Town and she said she wanted a “decent” two bedroomed townhouse in that area costing between R950 000 and R1,2 million.

The man responded that the divorce agreement, which was made an order of court at the time, had not specified that the townhouse had to be in a specific area, and it was never ordered by the court by what date he had to buy the property for her.

Mr K said he was trying his best to buy the townhouse, but her insistence that only white people should stay in the complex, made his task very difficult.

Judge Molahlehi said while it was a crime to disobey a court order, he could not rule that the man was at fault.

He said the court order granted during the divorce, setting out the woman’s demands, was not specific about what had to be done and when.

It lacked clarity and certainty on the critical aspects, including the specific location where the property should be.

The order did not provide any time frame for the respondent’s obligation.

"In other words, there was no deadline by when he was expected to buy this property, the judge said.

He found that there was no malice on the part of the man and subsequently turned down the ex-wife's application.

The woman was also obliged to foot the man's legal bill.

This order now leaves it open to the husband to take his time in finding “a suitable” property.