Die Grondwetlikheid van die eis vir verbeuring van voordele in terme van artikel 9 van die wet op Egskeiding 70 van 1979

Abstract

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.