The Roman law and Roman-Dutch law initially governed the forfeiture of benefits in
terms of matrimonial property law. The law regarding forfeiture of benefits, however,
had many shortcomings. The shortcomings thereof were identified and a finalised bill
was submitted to parliament, which was accepted as the Divorce Act 70 of 1979.
The court must take the factors of section 9 (1) of the Divorce Act into account to
determine whether the spouse against whom the forfeiture order is requested will be
unduly benefited should the order not be granted. In principle, this means that a
spouse should not forfeit his or her own assets and could result in the poorer spouse
normally forfeiting the most assets should the forfeiture order be granted. Although
socio-economic status is not a listed ground that may be discriminated on in terms of
section 9 of the Constitution, it may be argued that the forfeiture of benefits possibly
discriminates against the spouse in the weaker financial position. In general it can
be assumed that a woman acquires fewer assets than her husband and that she will
own fewer assets than the latter during the course of the marriage. This
discrimination is the result of the fact that women are usually the poorer spouse and
therefore face to forfeit the most assets should the order be granted.
This paper will investigate the possible unconstitutionality of section 9 (1) of the
Divorce Act. Hereinafter certain suggestions are made in order to improve this
provision. It is suggested that a wider discretion should be given to the courts, which
will result in non-monetary contributions to be taken into account before a forfeiture
order is granted, and that section 9 (1) of the Divorce Act should not contain a closed
list of factors which may be considered during the possible granting of the forfeiture
order.
Die verbeuring van voordele was aanvanklik deur die Romeinse reg en die
Romeins-Hollandse reg gereguleer. Die reg rakende verbeuringsbevele het
egter vele tekortkominge gehad. Die tekortkominge hiervan was
ge?dentifiseer en daarna was ?n gefinaliseerde wetsontwerp aan die parlement
voorgel? wat as die Wet op Egskeiding 70 van 1979 aanvaar is.
Die hof moet met inagneming van die faktore van artikel 9(1) van die Wet op
Egskeiding vasstel of die gade teen wie die verbeuringsbevel aangevra word
onbehoorlik bevoordeel sal word indien die bevel nie toegestaan word nie. In
beginsel sal dit beteken dat ?n gade nie sy of haar eie bates mag verbeur nie
wat tot gevolg sal h? dat die armer gade noodwendig die meeste bates het
om te verloor by die toestaan van ?n verbeuringsbevel. Alhoewel sosioekonomiese
status nie ?n grond is waarop daar nie teen gediskrimineer kan
word in terme van artikel 9 van die Grondwet, nie kan daar steeds
geargumenteer word dat die verbeuring van voordele moontlik diskrimineer
teen die gade in die swakker finansi?le posisie. Oor die algemeen kan
aanvaar word dat ?n vrou minder bates as haar man sal besit en dat sy deur
die loop van die huwelik ook minder bates as laasgenoemde sal verkry.
Hierdie diskriminasie is die gevolg van die feit dat vrouens gewoonlik die
armer gade is en dus die meeste het om te verloor by die toestaan van ?n
verbeuringsbevel.
In hierdie opstel, sal daar ?n ondersoek na die moontlike ongrondwetlikheid
van artikel 9(1) van die Wet op Egskeiding geloods word. Hierna word daar
sekere voorstelle gemaak om hierdie bepaling te verbeter. Daar word
voorgestel dat ?n wyer diskresie aan die howe gegee moet word wat tot
gevolg sal h? dat nie-monet?re bydraes in ag geneem word voordat ?n
verbeuringsbevel toegestaan word en dat artikel 9(1) van die Wet op
Egskeiding nie ?n geslote lys van faktore behoort te lys wat oorweeg kan word
by die toestaan van die bevel nie.
