A messy and costly divorce: Wife says she needs R177 820 a month from her DJ husband


R17 820 for beauty costs; R30 000 for household routine expenditure; R80 000 for maintenance of the two minor children – R40 000 each. A total of R177 820 – that is what a wife is demanding monthly from her DJ husband in a messy divorce being heard in the high court in Johannesburg.

In court papers filed this week, the wife is demanding a contribution of R4 million from him to go towards her legal fees and indicated that she wanted to hire a forensic investigator to trace assets valued at least R50 million.

But the DJ hit back, saying his financial income had been affected by the Covid-19 coronavirus lockdown, which had curtailed the movement of people. He worked in Europe and the US, as well as South Africa, but had not been able to travel.

I have no problem with a card being made available so that he can see what expenses are paid for.
Wife in court papers

He said he had also had a tax assessment and he owed several million rands to the SA Revenue Service (Sars).

It was clear from the court papers that the wife had filed them after attempts to reach a settlement had failed.

In the papers, she alleged that her husband earned a substantial income annually in South Africa and even more from stints in Europe and the US.

“He clearly has to make available and return an allowance of R30 000 to the household as a matter of routine expenditure. In addition, he should also return R80 000 per month, this would be for the minor children’s expenses, events and clothing. Also, he must pay for my beauty expenses which is R17 820 per month. I have no problem with a card being made available so that he can see what expenses are paid for,” she said in the papers.

She indicated that the DJ had stopped all allowances to her in April last year.

The wife, who is self-employed, said her life had been difficult since the split. She relied on her mother to lend her money “most of the time”.

“My financials are unstable. Also, it depends on a project basis and it is accordingly difficult to estimate my exact earnings.”

For reasons of a lack of transparency about his bank accounts in South Africa and abroad, a forensic investigator will probably be required to investigate these assets.

She indicated that at this stage she had no funds whatsoever to pay for her attorneys for their account or trial preparation.

“I am concerned about the ‘disparity of arms’ in that I do not have assets that I can easily liquidate to provide for legal fees. All my assets are in a joint estate; he would not allow me to register property in my name or take out a retirement annuity or even buy jewellery in my name; he stated that all our assets should be held in his name because he was managing the estate for both of us,” she said.

The wife claimed in court papers, seen by City Press this week, that the issue of an antenuptial contract (ANC) [being married out of community of property] was discussed only a week before their big day.

“At that point he said we [would have] to see a lawyer ‘if we got divorced’.”

In her founding affidavit, she said: “I appreciate the ANC was about protection for his estate. Without going into details I have been advised that the ANC has a lot of dubious legal [issues] and should be set aside by court in due course.”

She claimed that after giving birth to her second child, the DJ told her that she did not have to work because he was able to take care of the family.

She planned to hire forensic investigators to probe what she believed was hidden wealth accumulated by the DJ.

“For reasons of a lack of transparency about his bank accounts in South Africa and abroad, a forensic investigator will probably be required to investigate these assets.”

She pointed out that her husband had failed to provide information about the much of the joint estate that was under his control.

“A premeeting to explore a settlement has taken place and the offer of settlement was a sum that bore no relationship to the joint estate.”

In his brief court response, the DJ said he would prefer not to deal with every allegation contained in his wife’s founding affidavit.

He disputed her monthly income, as well as the shortfall she claimed he should make good on.

“I would continue to maintain the children at the rate of R15 000 per child.”

He said his wife repeatedly referred to the “joint estate” and that she was attempting to portray that they were married in community property or that she was entitled to assets of the joint estate.

“This is factually and legally incorrect.”

However, his financial position was not as rosy as she portrayed. He said he was in trouble with the Sars. After the tax assessment he now owed pay a substantial sum to Sars. He said he had made representations on his financial position to comply with the assessment.

In reality, he said, his income derived from appearances at shows and events, especially in the European and US summer season, which ran from March to October.

“I always spent these periods either in Europe or the US where I earned substantial income. But the Covid-19 coronavirus has terminated all possibilities for generating income. I am at present without any stream of income,” he said.

The wife’s attorney, Jerry Nkeli, said it was silly for the DJ to show his assets publicly and to tell the court that he didn’t own them.

“It is an abuse of court processes; these are things that are supposed to be resolved privately, preferably. The law must take its course and it is my job to protect my client rights,” he said.

The DJ’s representative, Kagiso Dinaka, confirmed that he was aware of the matter against his client.

“I am aware of the Rule 43 matter that was brought by the plaintiff [the wife] against my client. However, I would prefer not to comment further because the matter is at a very sensitive stage at the moment. We must allow the court to make its decision.”


Ntombizodwa Makhoba 


+27 11 713 9001
ntombizodwa @citypress.co.za
69 Kingsway Rd, Auckland Park

Latest issue

July 2020

Latest issue
All the news from City Press.
Read now
Voting Booth
South African truck drivers have threatened to not return to work and instead allow foreign nationals to be at the forefront of the trucking industry should employers continue with their preferential hiring tendencies/ if things don’t change.
Please select an option Oops! Something went wrong, please try again later.
Agree. Put SA first
45% - 24 votes
Foreigners have rights
19% - 10 votes
It smacks of Xenophobia
36% - 19 votes