Lacheka Lubricants Limited & 1 other v Anju Chanandin & 4 others

The court agreed entirely with the reasoning in PWK vs JKG that it would be unjust to deny jurisdiction where ownership of claimed property is obfuscated through transfer to a company wholly controlled by the spouses or by the husband. Section 17 vests wide and unfettered discretion in the court once title is determined. The corporate veil may be lifted to determine actual beneficial ownership where the couple themselves ignored the separate personality during coverture.

Property acquired through funds from Lacheka Enterprises, in which Anju and Jahangir were the only shareholders and directors, had passed to various third parties. The joinder was necessary both to give those parties a hearing and to enable the court to inquire into actual ownership and control. Although the dispute was principally between the spouses, the amendment bringing in other parties was necessary; the ground of appeal on this point failed.

Anju's prayers included declarations over properties registered in Dilip's name, motor vehicles, and shares held in trust. In accordance with Muthembwa vs Muthembwa, both companies having been incorporated during cohabitation, the trial court could inquire into ownership of shares and distribute them, and could go behind the veil of incorporation regarding company-registered property. The orders sought and granted were competent.

The appellants' contention that the amended originating summons was incompetent for want of signature by the applicant or counsel was raised for the first time on appeal. Since the trial court expressed no opinion on it, the Court of Appeal declined to entertain it, confining its competence analysis to the joinder and reliefs issues.