Internationally renowned recording superstar DJ Black Coffee’s friend has scored a major victory after the court dismissed his wife’s application for interim maintenance.
Africa Daily can exclusively reveal that DJ Black Coffee’s friend, who is also an artist, who is also a DJ, was hauled to court by his wife who sought interim maintenance pending the outcome of their acrimonious divorce.
However, the court dismissed her application after finding that she failed to make full and frank disclosure of her financial circumstances during her divorce proceedings against Black Coffee’s friend.
The names of Black Coffee’s friend and his wife cannot be disclosed for legal reasons.
Delivering his judgement, Judge Van Aswegen, said the wife had approached the court in terms of Rule 43, seeking maintenance for herself and the couple’s minor son, as well as a contribution towards her legal costs.
She claimed that she was unemployed and financially dependent on Black Coffee’s friend after he allegedly terminated her employment as manageress of his companies following the disintegration of their union.
She told the court that she had previously earned at least R100 000 net a month as manageress and that she had been forced to rely on credit cards, loans and borrowed money after losing her income.
She placed her monthly expenses at about R87 000, with R64 850 attributed to herself and R21 700 to her son.
But the court found major inconsistencies between her application and her earlier financial disclosures.
In a Financial Disclosure Form signed in November 2025, the wife described herself as a freelance artist and recorded monthly expenditure of R44 876.26.
When she later launched her application, her claimed monthly expenses had increased to R87 000.
The court noted that she had provided no satisfactory explanation for the increase of more than R42 000.
The judge also found that she had failed to disclose approximately R262 000 she earned as a presenter of a well known programme between April and June 2025.
The payments included R126 000 on 30 April, R70 000 on 23 May and R66 000 on 30 May.
This, the court found, contradicted her ’s claim that she had stopped working as a media personality before joining her husband’s businesses and had become financially dependent on him.
The court also took issue with her disclosure regarding the couple’s matrimonial home in Joburg north.
Her Financial Disclosure Form indicated that she co-owned the property with Black Coffee’s friend and was entitled to half its value.
However, the judgment found that the property was registered solely in her name and had been fully paid off. It had a municipal value of about R3.275 million.
The court further questioned her claimed expenses, including R20 000 a month for transport.
Her bank statements also showed spending on expensive Bolt trips, takeaways and gambling, which the court found had not been adequately explained.
The judge said these discrepancies prevented the court from establishing her actual financial needs.
Black Coffee’s friend disputed his estranged wife’s portrayal of their respective financial positions.
According to the judgment, he told the court that the family had previously relied heavily on assistance from Black Coffee.
Black Coffee allegedly assisted the family with school fees, medical expenses for the couple’s son and payments towards their home.
The judgment states that he also purchased vehicles for the couple and helped them through severe financial difficulties.
Black Coffee’s friend said his own income had declined as the music industry changed and the genre in which he performed lost popularity.
His financial position improved temporarily after he travelled with Black Coffee and secured a DJ residency at Cipriani in Ibiza in 2025.
The engagement reportedly earned him about R1.45 million before a 20% agency commission, leaving approximately R1.16 million.
He said he sent the money he earned to his estranged wife to manage the household expenses.
He told the court that he was unemployed after the Ibiza residency ended and continued travelling with Black Coffee when opportunities arose while seeking another residency.
His wife disputed his version of events and alleged that her estranged husband’s companies had generated about R2 million in combined revenue between May and September 2025.
She also alleged that he worked for Black Coffee as a tour manager and right-hand man, an allegation he denied.
The court said there was a clear dispute over both parties’ employment status and earning capacity, but found that the wife ‘s failure to provide complete financial disclosure meant it could not properly determine her needs or her husband’s ability to meet them.
The judge said it is possible for the court to provide interim relief during divorce proceedings, but stressed that an applicant must establish their financial needs, the Black Coffee’s ability to meet those needs and the reasonableness of the relief sought.
The judge said the wife had failed to discharge that burden.
“The applicant had failed to establish that she and her child are entitled to maintenance as she has sketched a distorted reality of her means and their needs,” the judgment states.
The court also rejected her application for a contribution towards her legal costs.
Black Coffee’s existing payment of R5 000 a month towards the child’s maintenance was noted by the court. He had offered to continue paying the amount, which corresponds with the maintenance amount sought for the child in the divorce proceedings.
The court ordered that costs should follow the outcome, meaning the wife must pay the costs of the application.
The judgment sharply criticised what it described as the wife’s selective disclosure, warning that parties in this type of proceedings must approach the court with complete and accurate information.
The court said her failure to disclose material information had left it unable to determine whether she had a genuine need for the maintenance sought.
It concluded that her application could not succeed because the financial picture presented to the court was materially incomplete.