In short: in T.J.R v S.L.R and Others [2026] ZAGPJHC 1181, decided on 8 October 2026, the Johannesburg High Court refused a wife's application to freeze assets held by a family trust and a company pending her divorce. The court held that her redistribution claim is against her husband personally, and that the trust and company are separate legal persons. Whether the trust is really the husband's alter ego is a question for the divorce court, not for an urgent preservation application. The judgment is not a licence to hide assets: it leaves that question open, and the husband's own conduct with trust money features prominently in it.
The facts
• The marriage. The parties married in 1992, out of community of property without accrual. The husband issued divorce summons in May 2024. The wife counterclaimed for a redistribution of assets under section 7(3) of the Divorce Act. • The trust and companies. A discretionary family trust formed in 1999 holds shares in a business. Both spouses were trustees, and an independent trustee was appointed in June 2025. The husband wholly owns a company that is a shareholder in another business. • Protective steps. In September 2025 a court ordered that the trust's investment account needed both spouses' joint authority. The husband gave a written undertaking to the same effect, and the trustees passed a resolution confirming it. • The transfer. In December 2025 the trustees resolved to pay the husband's invoices of about R1.44 million. He transferred the full amount to his personal account and spent it within days. The court described this as a breach of the court order, his undertaking and the trust resolution. • The applications. The wife applied to preserve the trust and company assets and obtained an interim freezing order in January 2026. Most accounts were later unfrozen by consent, leaving about R270,000 held in trust by the husband's attorneys. She then asked for a final preservation order pending the divorce.
What the court decided and why
Acting Judge Ndlokovane dismissed the preservation application with costs. To get an interim interdict, an applicant must show a prima facie right, a well-grounded fear of irreparable harm, a balance of convenience in their favour and no other adequate remedy. The court found the application failed on each point.
• No prima facie right to the assets. The assets are held by the trust and the company, not by the husband. The court held that the wife's right "is a right to claim a redistribution from the First Respondent personally". A finding that the trust is the husband's alter ego "cannot be made in these proceedings". • Separate legal persons. The trust and the company are separate from the husband. The court found the fear that they would dissipate their assets was speculative. • Balance of convenience. Freezing the trust and company assets would paralyse legitimate business operations. • Other remedies exist. The wife can pursue the alter ego argument in the divorce action itself, use discovery and subpoenas to get the financial records, and bring a fresh preservation application before the divorce court. Her existing Rule 43 maintenance order also protects her in the meantime.
By agreement, the trustees and the husband's company were joined as parties to the divorce action. That keeps the trust and company assets before the divorce court.
What the court did not decide
The judgment is narrow. It does not say the trust assets are safe from the divorce. • It did not decide whether the trust is the husband's alter ego. That remains open for the divorce court. • It did not finally decide whether the corporate veil should be pierced. • It did not deal with the December 2025 transfer as contempt of court, because no contempt application was before it.
Commentators note that the judgment sits uneasily with S.M v J.M [2023] ZAGPJHC 704, where a court did preserve entity-held assets on a prima facie view that they were a spouse's alter ego (Family Laws South Africa (opens in a new tab)). The law in this area is still developing.
The cautionary tale
This case is a warning to everyone involved with a family trust during a divorce.
For trustees and the spouse who controls the trust: • A trust is not a personal bank account. Trustees must act together and in the interests of the trust and its beneficiaries. Moving trust money into a trustee's own account invites exactly the scrutiny this case shows. • Court orders and undertakings must be obeyed. The court recorded the December 2025 transfer as a breach of a court order, a written undertaking and a trust resolution. Breaching a court order can lead to contempt proceedings. • The alter ego question has not gone away. Where a spouse treats a trust as their own, a divorce court can find that it is their alter ego and take its assets into account. Winning a preservation application does not answer that question. • Good administration matters. Proper minutes, separate accounts, independent trustees and decisions taken for the trust's benefit are what separate a genuine trust from an alter ego.
For the spouse seeking protection: • Freezing trust assets is hard. A court will not easily interdict a separate legal entity on the strength of a claim against your spouse personally. • Plead the facts. Set out specific facts showing that your spouse controls and uses the trust as their own, and ask for a prima facie assessment rather than a final finding. • Ask for relief against your spouse too. Seek protection against your spouse personally, in the alternative to relief against the trust or company. • Use the tools the court pointed to. Join the trustees and companies to the divorce, use discovery and subpoenas, and enforce existing orders, including through contempt proceedings where they are breached.
Sources
• T.J.R v S.L.R and Others (2026-000369) [2026] ZAGPJHC 1181, Gauteng Division, Johannesburg, 8 October 2026 • Freezing the trust and the company: TJR v SLR (opens in a new tab), Family Laws South Africa
This article summarises a court judgment as at 25 October 2026 and is general information only, not legal advice. Lawvero provides document preparation services and does not provide legal advice.