NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAFIKENG

CASE NO. Div. 177/2010

In the matter between:

E L S PLAINTIFF

and

C J D S DEFENDANT

____________________________________________________________________________

JUDGMENT

____________________________________________________________________________

GUTTA J.

A. INTRODUCTION

[1] This is an action for divorce wherein the plaintiff claims:

1.1 a decree of divorce;

1.2 equal division of the joint estate;

2

1.3 that the plaintiff is entitled to 50% of the defendant’s pension

interest at the Mine Employees Pension Fund (“the Pension Fund”)

as on the date of divorce;

1.4 that the said pension fund be authorized to pay 50% of the

defendant’s pension interest at the Pension Fund to the plaintiff;

1.5 costs of suit.

[2] The defendant filed a plea and counter-claim, wherein she claimed:

2.1 a decree of divorce;

2.2 an order that the plaintiff forfeit the entire patrimonial benefits

arising out of the marriage in community of property in favour of

the defendant;

2.3 that the plaintiff pay the costs of suit.

[3] At the commencement of the proceedings, counsel for the plaintiff, Mr

Maree, handed in an unconditional offer, in terms of Rule 34, wherein he

unconditionally tendered to settle the defendant’s counter-claim as

follows:

3.1 a decree of divorce;

3.2 the estate of the parties be divided as follows:

3

3.2.1 the defendant will retain the immovable property situate at

1304 Foxlake, Tlhabane, as her sole and exclusive property;

3.2.2 the plaintiff shall retain the immovable property situate at

1697 Lefaragatlhe, Bafokeng, as his sole and exclusive

property;

3.2.3 the defendant will retain all assets currently in her possession,

alternatively in her name, as her sole and exclusive property;

3.2.4 the plaintiff will retain all assets currently in his possession,

alternatively in his name, as his sole and exclusive property.

The movables include the Colt vehicle, with registration

number FTM 800 NW, which is currently in the possession of

the defendant;

3.2.5 each party shall be liable for payment of those debts which

he/she personally incurred, alternatively which are in his/her

name and each party irrevocably indemnifies the other in

respect of claims which may be initiated against the other in

this regard;

3.2.6 the plaintiff is entitled to 50% of the defendant’s pension

interest with the Pension Fund, as on date of divorce, after

the date of divorce. The said Pension Fund is hereby directed

to make payment of 50% of the defendant’s said interest to

the plaintiff after date of divorce;

4

3.3 each party will be responsible for the payment of his/her own costs

of the action.

[4] Mr Maree informed the Court that the defendant accepted the offer in

terms of rule 34, save for the Colt vehicle in paragraph 3.2.4 and the

pension interest in paragraph 3.2.6.

[5] Mr Haskins, counsel for the defendant, submitted that the defendant

bore the onus to prove forfeiture and any entitlement to pension. He

submitted that evidence will be tendered to prove, that:

5.1 the defendant was employed and had a pension interest before

she married the plaintiff;

5.2 the plaintiff received his pension, which he utilised without having

regard to the defendant;

5.3 because of the circumstances giving rise to the breakdown in the

marriage, the defendant was entitled to claim forfeiture of

benefits.

B. EVIDENCE

[6] The first witness to testify was the defendant. Her evidence in brief is the

following:

5

6.1 She is residing in Tlhabane, which is her permanent place of

residence. She has no children from the marriage relationship. She

confirmed the agreement reached in terms of Rule 34, save for the

Colt motor vehicle and the pension interest.

6.2 She was previously married for 7 years, from which marriage

relationship she had a child who is now 32 years old. Her husband

died and she remained a widow for 17 years before she met the

plaintiff, whom she met in March 2003 and married in July 2003.

6.3 Prior to the marriage with the plaintiff, she was employed at Impala

Platinum Limited (“Impala”) for 17 years. She is still employed at

Impala and has a provident fund. She also had a furnished house,

when she married the plaintiff.

6.4 The plaintiff was also employed at Impala as a safety officer when

he and the defendant married and had a pension interest. He

lived with his parents and owned an Audi 500 vehicle.

6.5 The problems in their marriage started immediately after the

wedding. The plaintiff did not love her parents and her daughter

from her previous marriage relationship. The plaintiff used

derogatory words to describe them. He referred to her parents as

‘Bakgalagadi’ and her daughter as a ‘Bitch’. He refused to allow

her parents and daughter to visit her in her house, which hurt her

deeply.

6

6.6 She relayed an incident when her father called her to tell her that

her mother was ill. Her father asked to talk to the plaintiff. The

plaintiff spoke to her father on the phone and then hung up. The

plaintiff told her to tell her father to stop phoning him and that her

father only knows him when her mother is ill and that he cannot

help her father because those who die are not fools. Her mother

died a few days later.

6.7 She and the plaintiff did not have a good relationship. He was

aggressive and did not talk to her. He only spoke to her when he

was insulting her. He called her a bitch.

6.8 The plaintiff was not faithful to her during their marriage. They did

not have a sexual relationship for approximately 2 years and 8

months. When the defendant left the common home, the plaintiff

informed her that he had a baby from another woman. She also

related an incident on 31 March 2010 when the plaintiff had left

the house. On his return, he insulted her by calling her by her

mother’s private parts. He told her to ‘voetsek’ from his house so

that he can give space to the ‘wife’ and child he loves. He hit her

with a bottle of juice on the back.

6.9 The plaintiff first worked at Impala, then he left to work at Northern

Platinum Mine, and then he left to work at Marikana. For a

considerable period of time, he was unemployed. He also worked

at Anglo Platinum Mine for a while and then left work.

7

6.10 Whenever he resigned from his work, he received a pension

payout. She did not know how much he received or what he

spent the money on.

6.11 While they lived together, she purchased most of the groceries.

The plaintiff would seldom buy groceries. She purchased all the

furniture and when they lived in Tlhabane, she paid for the water

and electricity.

6.12 The plaintiff disposed of certain assets, such as an Audi and

Mercedes Benz motor vehicles, a computer and CD player without

the defendant’s knowledge and consent.

6.13 She purchased the Colt vehicle, which is registered in her name on

12 March 2008 and paid a deposit of R15 000.00. She paid monthly

instalments to Nedbank until she paid the vehicle in full. The

plaintiff only contributed to two payments.

6.14 She first contributed to the Provident Fund from 1986 to October

2008 and thereafter to the Pension Fund, to which she is still

contributing. The gross value for both the Provident Fund and the

Pension Fund is R500 000.00. The plaintiff made no contribution to

the two funds. She did not want to share her pension fund with the

plaintiff because he did not share his money with her.

8

[7] On cross-examination, it was put to the defendant that her child is not

her child, but her sister’s child and that the child lived with both her and

the plaintiff for 5 years since 2003. The defendant denied this.

[8] It was put to the defendant that the plaintiff contributed to the purchase

of groceries and that the defendant also used the plaintiff’s vehicle after

they married. This, the defendant, denied.

[9] The plaintiff’s counsel also put it to the defendant that the plaintiff and

the defendant had a good relationship after their marriage and that the

plaintiff also had a good relationship with the defendant’s parents. The

defendant disputed this.

[10] It was further put to the defendant that the plaintiff received his pension

fund in 2005 in the amount of R95 000.00 and of that amount, he paid

R20 000.00 towards the house in Tlhabane and paid R15 000.00 to build a

wall, carport and to pave the yard. He also purchased a Mercedes

Benz for R25 000.00. The defendant replied that when she met the

plaintiff, the house was already paid up. She testified that the cost for

the wall was R25 000.00 and for the carport R3 000.00, which she paid

for.

[11] When it was put to the defendant that the plaintiff sold the Mercedes

Benz for an amount of R8 000.00, she replied that this was the first time

she heard this as the plaintiff did not discuss the sale of the vehicle with

her. She also disputed that they both used the R8 000.00 to supplement

her income.

9

[12] She testified that in 2009, the plaintiff told her that he sold the other

vehicle for an amount of R13 000.00 and not R15 000.00 as was put to

her. The plaintiff told her that he was putting the money in a drawer for

purchase of groceries, but when she opened the drawer, the money

was not there.

[13] Mr Maree put it to the defendant that in 2009 the plaintiff received a

pension payout in the amount of R89 000.00, and of this money, he used

R28 000.00 to purchase a vehicle, R30 000.00 to complete the house at

Lefaragatlha, R12 000.00 was to build a wall around it and R5 000.00

towards the contribution of a Colt and Mazda motor vehicles. The

defendant denied this and stated that he only paid instalments for two

months on the Colt vehicle.

[14] The plaintiff testified and disputed the evidence of the defendant. In

brief, he also testified that:

14.1 Among the reasons for the breakdown of his marriage, is because

they used their own money and did not combine their money.

14.2 He received two pension payouts. One was from Impala in 2005, in

the amount of R89 000.00 and the second from Anglo Platinum

Mine in 2009, in the amount of R90 000.00.

14.3 With the first payment, he paid the remaining balance on the

bond on the house in Tlhabane, built a fence for R25 000.00 and

10

purchased a Mercedes Benz for R25 000.00, with the knowledge of

the defendant.

14.4 With the second pension payout, he used R30 000.00 to pay off the

loan in Lefaragatlha and purchased another Mercedes Benz for

R28 000.00 with the defendant’s knowledge.

14.5 He denied that he did not care for the defendant’s parents or that

he did not allow them to visit or used derogatory names or was

aggressive or assaulted her.

14.6 He disputed that the defendant’s child is her child and stated that

the child is her sister’s.

14.7 He denied that he has another woman or a child.

14.8 He denied that he gave up his employment without discussing it

with the defendant.

14.9 In respect of the sale of the Audi, he testified that it was sold for

R12 000.00. He took the money home where he put the money in

a drawer of the headboard in the bedroom and told the

defendant that if she needed money, she could use it. They both

used the money.

14.10 In respect of the Mercedes Benz, they both agreed that they

should sell it because it had electrical problems. It was sold for

11

R9 000.00. Of that R9 000.00, he used R5 000.00 as a deposit to

purchase the Colt bakkie and the balance they used together at

home.

14.11 They agreed to purchase the Colt vehicle. Each of them paid

R5 000.00 towards the deposit of the vehicle. The defendant was

unable to pay the instalments towards the Colt vehicle because of

her salary and he made arrangements with the bank to pay the

instalments. They purchased a Huyndai Electra and she paid the

R10 000.00 deposit. He contributed R4 000.00 for the two vehicles

from 2007 to 2009.

14.12 The computer which the defendant alleged was stolen was at

home. He had borrowed it to his son who returned it.

14.13 He testified that they saw a prophet because she was having a

problem falling pregnant.

14.14 The plaintiff was aggressive during their marriage. She was

unfaithful because he caught her in the company of another male

person. She did not respect him and stayed away some

weekends. One night at 20h00 he saw the defendant in the

company of another man when he went to fill petrol.

12

[15] Under cross-examination, it was put to the plaintiff that he has a son by

the name of Junior Lekota. He denied this.

[16] Under cross-examination, it was put to the plaintiff that the house in

Tlhabane was fully paid before they got married. He did not dispute that

the defendant had a house, but testified that the defendant told him

that the balance of the house was R35 000.00 and he gave her the

R35 000.00.

[17] The plaintiff was questioned concerning the Audi which he testified was

sold for R13 000.00 and his attention was directed to the fact that the

Audi was sold for R15 000.00 on 15 August 2008. He conceded that

maybe it was an error as it was a long time ago.

[18] When confronted about his testimony that the defendant’s daughter is

her sister’s daughter, the plaintiff stated that he heard this from a lady

who worked in his office. He admitted that because he believed the

child was not the defendant’s, it influenced his relationship with the

child. He further testified that the defendant’s daughter lived with them

and later that she lived in Tlhabane with her boyfriend.

[19] The plaintiff was confronted about a payment he received from the

Bafokeng Club. He admitted he received an amount of R34 000.00

which they shared together in November 2009. The plaintiff testified that

of the R34 000.00, R20 000.00 was used to build a wall for the house in the

village and the remaining R15 000.00 was spent by both of them. He

13

drew the money from the account if and when they needed the money.

Later the plaintiff testified that he received R35 000.00 and not

R34 000.00, more or less R35 000.00. He could not recall any specific

occasion when he gave the defendant money.

[20] The plaintiff was questioned why there is no mention made of the

defendant’s boyfriend in his summons and he replied that he did not tell

his attorney.

[21] Under cross-examination, it was put to the plaintiff that the defendant

paid for the wall, carport and paving from her money, as she had

savings at Nedbank and Teba Bank. He denied this and replied that

they were secret savings accounts that he heard of for the first time in

Court.

[22] Of the money he put in the drawer, he knew that he used R4 000.00, but

he could not say what amount the defendant used.

[23] The plaintiff testified that the defendant was aggressive towards him and

did not listen to him after he told her what to do and this made him

angry. He reported this to the elders.

[24] On cross-examination, it was put to him that he testified that he had a

good relationship with the plaintiff’s parents but when he got a call that

his mother-in-law was on her death bed he did not go and see her. She

died on the Wednesday after the call. He replied that he did not have

money to go and see her.

14

[25] The plaintiff denied that they had not been sleeping together for almost

two years before they separated and testified that it was for six months.

[26] In respect of the Colt and Huyndai vehicles, he testified that he paid the

money into the defendant’s bank account.

[27] A question was posed to the plaintiff whether there was a maintenance

order against him, he replied that there was one before they married.

Counsel for the defendant handed in an order for maintenance against

the plaintiff in May 2008, which the plaintiff then admitted and he

testified that he did not pay the maintenance in terms of the order as he

and the child’s mother agreed that the child will be maintained out of

Court.

C. THE LAW

[28] With a marriage in community of property, the parties acquire joint

ownership of each other’s property and on the dissolution of the

marriage there is equal division of property, even though the one party

has contributed less than the other.

[29] The party seeking an order for forfeiture is in essence applying to the

Court that the party should forfeit that which he did not contribute to.

Hence, if his contribution was only 20%, then he should forfeit 80%.

[30] Schrener J (as he then was) explained in Smith v Smith 1937 WLD 126 at

15

127–128 that:

“What the defendant forfeits is not his sharing of the common

property but only the pecuniary benefits that he would otherwise

have derived from the marriage. . . It (the order for forfeiture) is

really an order for division plus an order that the defendant is not

to share in any excess that the plaintiff may have contributed

over the contribution of the defendant.”

Hence the ‘benefits’ are the excess of the one party’s contribution to

the joint estate over and above the other party’s contribution.

[31] In terms of Section 9 of the Divorce Act, the Court has a discretion, when

granting a divorce on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown of a

marriage, to order that the patrimonial benefits of the marriage be

forfeited by one party in favour of the other. The Court may order

forfeiture only if it is satisfied that the one party will, in relation to the

other, be unduly benefited. See JW v SW 2011 (1) SA 545 GNP.

[32] The Court, when considering whether one party would be unduly

benefited, takes the following factors into account:

32.1 the duration of the marriage;

32.2 the circumstances that gave rise to the breakdown of the

marriage;

32.3 any substantial misconduct on the part of either of the parties and

that an undue benefit may accrue to the one party in relation to

16

the other, if an order of forfeiture is not granted.

See Section 9(1) of the Divorce Act 7 of 1979.

[33] A Court’s discretion is limited to the above factors and no other factors,

other than the aforementioned may be taken into account. See Botha v

Botha 2006 (4) SA 144 SCA.

[34] A finding of substantial misconduct under Section 9(1) requires a

consideration of the gravity of the conduct that gave rise to the

breakdown of the marriage. See Wijker v Wijker 1993 (4) SA 720 A at

729J–730B.

[35] In the Wijker v Wijker case supra, the Court considered whether proof of

‘substantial misconduct’ was an essential requirement for a forfeiture

order. It found that it was not and held, at 729E–F, that the context and

the subject matter of Section 9(1) made it abundantly clear that the

legislature never intended the three factors mentioned in the section to

be considered cumulatively. At 727E–F it held that:

“It is obvious from the wording of the section that the first step is to

determine whether or not the party against whom the order is

sought will in fact be benefited. That will be purely a factual

issue. Once that has been established the trial court must

determine, having regard to the factors mentioned in the section,

whether or not that party will in relation to the other be unduly

benefited if a forfeiture order is not made. Although the second

determination is a value judgment, it is made by that court after

having considered the facts falling within the compass of the

three factors mentioned in the section.”

Also see Botha v Botha supra.

17

[36] A Court may order that either all the patrimonial benefits from the

marriage or only some be forfeited. See Steenberg v Steenberg 1963 (4) SA

870 (C).

[37] In JW v SW supra, the Court held that a spouse or partner cannot be

made to forfeit those assets that he/she actually brought into the joint

estate.

[38] The onus is on the applicant for a forfeiture order to prove the nature

and the ambit of the benefit to be forfeited, and in so doing, the

applicant must prove the extent to which it is an undue benefit. See

Engelbrecht v Engelbrecht 1989 (1) SA 597 (C); JW v AOW 2011 (1) SA 545

GNP.

D. EVALUATION

[39] The plaintiff’s evidence consisted largely of a denial of the defendant’s

evidence.

[40] The defendant answered all the questions in examination in chief and

cross-examination in a forthright manner and did not deviate in any

material respect. There was no material contradiction in her evidence

and from her demeanour, she remained composed and answered

questions confidently. I am of the view that she was a credible witness.

[41] The plaintiff did not answer the questions put to him in cross-examination

18

honestly and frankly and was very often evasive and attempted to

portray himself as a caring thoughtful husband who never used

derogatory names and cared for the defendant’s family.

[42] There were several contradictions in the plaintiff’s testimony. He also

contradicted his version, which was put to the defendant in cross-

examination, namely:

42.1 the amounts received from the two pension payouts and how he

utilised the money;

42.2 the amount he received for the sale of the vehicles and how he

utilised the money;

42.3 his contribution towards the payment of the Colt vehicle;

42.4 the fact that the defendant’s child lived with them;

[43] He became tangled in his own web of untruths in that he testified that

he cared for the defendant’s family, but he was unable to explain why

he did not go and see the defendant’s mother, after he received a call

that she was fatally ill. The fact that he, even today, believes that the

defendant’s daughter is not her biological daughter, which information

he received from a co-employee is indicative of a lack of trust and that

this was not a harmonious loving marriage, as the plaintiff wants the

Court to believe. The plaintiff could not account fully for how he spent

the money he received from the pension payout and his contribution to

19

the joint estate.

[44] He testified that he used R20 000.00 of the pension money to settle the

bond on the house in Tlhabane and when confronted in cross-

examination with the statement that the house was fully paid when the

defendant married the plaintiff, he replied that he gave the defendant

cash in the amount of R35 000.00 to pay the balance on the house. I

accept the defendant’s version that she purchased the immovable

property in 1990 for an amount of R31 000.00, which was fully paid for

when she married the plaintiff.

[45] I accept the defendant’s evidence that she paid for the wall around the

property and the paving and that the plaintiff did not contribute in any

way whatsoever to the joint estate. The money which the plaintiff

received from his pension funds, Bafokeng Club and the sale of the

vehicles was not used for the benefit of the joint estate.

[46] The plaintiff was not forthright in the manner that he answered the

questions. Unlike the defendant, he was not credible. Furthermore, his

version was less probable.

[47] I am of the view that the defendant’s version is more probable than the

plaintiff’s. Accordingly, I reject the defendant’s version.

[48] It is common cause that the defendant was at Impala for 17 years, in

which time she not only contributed towards her pension, she purchased

the immovable property and the furniture. The defendant contributed

20

towards her pension fund for 17 years before she married the plaintiff

and the plaintiff did not make any contribution towards the pension fund

after they married.

[49] Hence the plaintiff is seeking a benefit for which he made no

contribution. The undivided half share in the defendant’s pension

interest, which the defendant brought to the joint estate is the benefit

which the plaintiff derives from the marriage in community of property, if

a forfeiture order is not made.

[50] The next question is whether the benefit which amounts to equal division

of the joint estate is undue, having regard to the three factors in Section

9(1) of the Divorce Act.

[51] When considering the factors in Section 9(1) of the Divorce Act, the

following is noted:

51.1 The Plaintiff and the defendant were married in July 2003. Their

marriage was for a relatively short period when considering that

the plaintiff was a widow for 17 years before she met the plaintiff.

51.2 I accept the reasons given by the defendant in her evidence and

in her counter-claim for the breakdown of the marriage, namely:

51.2.1 the plaintiff was aggressive, humiliating and belittling

towards the defendant and he in so doing, the plaintiff

attempted to destroy the defendant psychologically;

21

51.2.2 on 17 December 2009, the plaintiff vacated the common

bedroom of the parties and since such time, the parties

have not lived together with one another in the same

bedroom;

51.2.3 as a result of the plaintiff’s conduct as set out herein, the

parties have not exercised marital privileges with one

another for a period of approximately two years and

eight months;

51.2.4 the plaintiff failed to contribute his fair share to the

monthly expenses of the matrimonial home of the parties,

notwithstanding the fact that no reason whatsoever

existed as to why the plaintiff could not obtain

employment, earn an income and contribute to same;

51.2.5 during the marriage relationship between the parties, the

plaintiff received pension payouts from both Anglo

American and Impala, which pension payouts the plaintiff

appropriated to himself and which pension payouts the

plaintiff has spent in full, on himself;

51.2.6 during the marriage relationship between the parties, the

plaintiff sold two motor vehicles of the joint estate of the

parties and spent the proceeds arising out of such sale,

on himself;

22

51.2.7 the plaintiff regularly used foul and abusive language

towards and concerning the defendant;

51.2.8 on Wednesday, 31 March 2010, the plaintiff assaulted the

defendant by throwing a two litre bottle of orange juice

at the defendant;

51.2.9 the plaintiff was unreasonably stubborn and wanted

everything his own way. In so doing, the plaintiff failed to

take into account the defendant’s feelings, needs and

requirements;

51.2.10 the plaintiff failed to confide in the defendant and to take

the defendant into his confidence;

51.2.11 as a result of the plaintiffs conduct as set out herein, the

defendant vacated the matrimonial home of the parties

on Sunday, 04 April 2010 and since such time, the parties

have not lived together with one another under the same

roof.

51.3 The plaintiff’s conduct and behaviour towards the defendant and

her family, as stated supra, constitutes substantial misconduct on

the part of the plaintiff, as his conduct, as stated supra, contributed

to the breakdown of the marriage relationship.

23

[52] I have considered the duration of the marriage, the grounds which led

to the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage between the parties and

substantial misconduct and I am of the view from the aforegoing that

the plaintiff will be unduly benefitted if forfeiture of benefits on the

defendant’s pension interest is granted.

[53] In so far as the Colt motor vehicle was concerned, the defendant bore

the onus to prove the extent of the plaintiff’s benefit on the dissolution of

the marriage, that is, that any benefit received by the plaintiff would be

undue.

[54] I accept the defendant’s evidence that the plaintiff only contributed

towards the payment of the two instalments towards the purchase of

the said vehicle. Hence, the plaintiff would receive a half share in the

value of the Colt vehicle by virtue of his marriage in community of

property to the plaintiff unless the Court orders forfeiture of benefits.

[55] The question arises is whether the defendant, who bears the burden of

proof, has discharged the onus to prove the extent of the plaintiff’s

benefit, should be forfeited.

[56] For the reasons stated supra, when considering the factors in Section 9(1)

of the Divorce Act, I am of the view that the benefit will be undue if this

Court does not grant forfeiture of benefits.

24

E. CONCLUSION

[57] I am of the view that the defendant has discharged the onus to prove

forfeiture of benefits.

F. ORDER

[58] In the circumstances, I make the following order:

58.1 a decree of divorce.

58.2 the estate of the parties be divided as follows:

58.2.1 the defendant will retain the immovable property situate at

1304 Foxlake, Tlhabane, as her sole and exclusive property;

58.2.2 the plaintiff shall retain the immovable property situate at

1697 Lefaragatlhe, Bafokeng, as his sole and exclusive

property;

58.2.3 the defendant will retain all assets currently in her possession,

alternatively in her name, as her sole and exclusive property,

including the Colt vehicle with registration number FTM 800

NW;

25

58.2.4 the plaintiff will retain all assets currently in his possession,

alternatively in his name, as his sole and exclusive property;

58.2.5 each party shall be liable for payment of those debts which

he/she personally incurred, alternatively which are in his/her

name and each party irrevocably indemnifies the other in

respect of claims which may be initiated against the other in

this regard;

58.2.6 the plaintiff is not entitled to 50% of the defendant’s pension

interest with the Pension Fund, as on date of divorce.

58.3 each party will be responsible for the payment of his/her own costs

of the action.

_________________

N. GUTTA

JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

26

APPEARANCES

DATE OF HEARING : 28 MAY 2012

DATE OF JUDGMENT : 29 JUNE 2012

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF : ADV G. MAREE

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT : ADV M.L. HASKINS SC

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF : SMIT STANTON INC. (Instructed by MOLOTO-WEISS INC.)

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT : NIENABER & WISSING (Instructed by SHAPIRO & SHAPIRO INC.)