She was the picture of a blushing bride in her £30,000 dress designed by the woman who created Princess Diana’s wedding gown. And he, insurance billionaire Douw Steyn in a black suit, fitted the image of a besotted groom as Rev Simon Wilkinson presided over their “nuptials”.
But it turns out the August 2007 ceremony between Steyn and Donne Botha in front of family and friends at the ornate gilt reception room in London’s Lanesborough Hotel was nothing more than an expensive party that has now left Botha with an expensive hangover.
A court has declared that Botha was never married to Steyn, leaving her empty-handed in her bid to get half of his estimated R10bn estate and facing a substantial costs order for his legal fees.
She also leaves the short-lived relationship with no chance of any financial benefit after Durban high court judge Khosi Hadebe said it was clear any other claim she had against him, other than the one based on the purported marriage, had become prescribed through time.
The Sunday Times first reported on the litigation in 2017 when papers were exchanged in Botha’s bid for a “divorce” and half of Steyn’s assets.
In the alternative she relied on a “written agreement”, purportedly concluded in April 2007, that should they break up she would be entitled to a R5m house, R20m in cash, a R2m car, two engagement rings and R100,000 a month.
The couple met in 2005 and became engaged. They travelled between London and SA.
Evidence before the court was that on August 18 2007 they hosted a ceremony at a posh London hotel. Invitations were sent out and guests were flown in.
Wilkinson presided, rings were exchanged and a celebration party followed.
But Hadebe has now ruled that it was not a legal ceremony and Botha always knew that.
The relationship soured a few months after the ceremony, and remained on and off until 2009 when they finally split for good.
Botha initiated the legal action in 2014 but, after several legal skirmishes, it was only set down for hearing in November last year.
Steyn called British solicitor Adrian Christmas to give evidence.
He referred to the ceremony as a “blessing ceremony”.
He said shortly before the planned event he had received a call from Steyn saying he was unable to get married because he could not get a special licence in time. But he had invited everybody and all the plans were already in place.
Christmas said he advised him to go ahead with it, but that it would not be a marriage and would have no legal effect.
Then in late December he was again summoned to Steyn’s house. He met Botha and Steyn and walked into a “warm ambience”. They told him they wanted an agreement to cover their cohabiting arrangements since they were not married.
They both wanted something in writing and it must be done “there and then”.
He penned a short agreement in his own handwriting. The essence of it was payment of R1m to her in the eventuality that they broke up or agreed to separate.
After Botha initiated the legal proceedings, Steyn had asked him to double-check if any marriage had been registered.
“It yielded negative results,” Christmas said.
Janet Kentridge, an expert in the laws of England, confirmed there was no registrar at the ceremony, no licence had been obtained and that there had been no lawful marriage concluded.
Wilkinson deposed to an affidavit, saying during the ceremony he had made no reference to any marriage, wedding, union, groom or bride.
He insisted the events planner and Steyn’s personal assistant had only requested a “blessing ceremony”. This is usually a short service where couples pledge their commitment to God.
Hadebe said after this evidence that Botha’s lawyers had conceded that “to a large extent the peremptory provisions in the relevant act had not been complied with”.
But they had still argued that the court must decide if she had any claims against Steyn.
The judge said it was clear that any other claim was out of time in terms of prescription legislation.
She also cited case law, in which it is clearly shown that the intention or belief of the parties is immaterial if the ceremony is not within four corners of the act.
And, she said, she only had jurisdiction to decide if there was a valid marriage.
The judge said it had been argued that Botha must have known way back in 2007 that no marriage had taken place.
“She was a poor witness, argumentative; she avoided answering questions. She insisted on making empty and unsubstantiated allegations. When she found herself trapped in a web of her inconsistencies, she pleaded duress or lack of capacity for which she has nothing to show.”
The judge said Botha had also not properly prepared her case, while Steyn had been “meticulous”. The evidence of Christmas, Kentridge and Wilkinson had not been challenged.
“The evidence presented leaves no shadow of a doubt in my mind that there was never a marriage. As a result there can be no talk of a degree of divorce. She may not have been schooled in English law, but she knew the prerequisites for a marriage in English law had not been met.
“She continued litigating, knowing that it was an exercise in futility.”
Hadebe said this was a case which warranted a punitive costs order against Botha.
“Steyn had an overwhelming case, and courts should not be inundated with unmeritorious applications to the detriment of deserving cases. I am satisfied that that is exactly what Botha has done in this case – to her detriment, I am afraid.”
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.