Expensive wristwatches, inherited jewellery, collectable coins, gold and millions in cash have vanished from an estranged couple's home during a caustic divorce battle in Cape Town.
The parties have been embroiled in litigation for several years and the latest chapter in the saga, involving these valuable items and what became of them, unfolded in a judgment handed down on Thursday by the high court in Cape Town.
“It seemed a straightforward and averagely unpleasant case. However, the issues in this matter were simple to state but more complex to answer,” reads the judgment by judge Derek Wille.
“The applicant and the respondent are estranged and embroiled in divorce proceedings and have been involved in various interlocutory applications for several years.”
One of the pending applications involves a subpoena by the husband against a friend of his estranged wife — the owner of a business featuring the name “gold”. It involves requesting specific financial documentation to determine if the missing personal items were sold.
His twin daughters told him [his estranged wife] was wealthy as she had money adorned with ‘Cheetahs’
— Judge Derek Wille
About five years ago, the wife preferred criminal charges against her husband who was arrested in the former matrimonial home they shared with three children — while the woman's friend was there.
The husband was held in custody for several days. Upon being released on bail, he was effectively prohibited from entering his home because of the bail conditions.
Months later, the woman withdrew the criminal charges but “steadfastly refused [him] access to his home despite the passage of more than five years”, according to the judgment.
All this time, his personal belongings were in the property occupied by the woman.
According to the judgment, it was alleged that these belongings included:
- several very expensive wristwatches;
- gold and silver jewellery inherited from the applicant’s late father;
- items historically kept in a safe, including various collectable coins, a gold chain, a gold bracelet, several rings and various ladies' watches, inherited from the applicant’s late grandmother;
- R1.3m in cash; and
- R2.5m in cash and a set of “Mandela Coins” which belonged to a “discrete company”.
The man's attorneys arranged to collect his belongings but were greeted instead with clothing and goods packed in garbage bags outside the house — excluding the expensive items and cash. Access to the house was denied.
Several attempts to obtain the goods “fell on deaf ears”. Upon being granted access to the property he discovered the “valuable items and money were nowhere to be found”.
“During this time [he] averred that his twin daughters told him [his estranged wife] was wealthy as she had money adorned with ‘Cheetahs’. [He] says this undoubtedly refers to the R200 banknotes he left in the former marital home,” reads the judgment.
He believed the money in the safe had been used and some, if not all, of the valuable items sold with the help of a third party [the woman's friend]. This third party, he argued, was complicit because he allegedly admitted to selling jewellery on behalf of the woman, was present during his arrest and was her “close friend”.
Just more than a year ago the husband initiated steps during the divorce proceedings to obtain documents related to deposits in his wife's bank accounts labelled “First Rand” and “Capitec” loans and another marked “Cgf finance” loan.
She replied by arguing the amounts were lent to her by a friend and no loan applications or agreements existed. He subpoenaed specific information related to her bank account that revealed the deposits originated from two bank accounts — one in the name of the friend's business and the other his personal account.
The husband alleged recently seeing his daughter wearing a gold chain he believed belonged to his late grandmother and, “upon inquiry, his daughter confided in him that [his wife] gave her this piece of jewellery”, reads the judgment.
“Forging ahead, about 10 months ago, and after considering this information, the applicant issued a subpoena against another financial institution to obtain copies of the bank statements and information regarding all the bank accounts held in the name of the [friend] and the bank account of [his business].
“It is this subpoena the third party and his company are vigorously opposing. An application has been piloted to set aside this subpoena because it is alleged this process constitutes a ‘fishing expedition’ and this setting-aside application will be heard early next year.”
However, the husband argued these documents were highly relevant to the divorce proceedings and a fresh bid by his estranged wife to extract increased interim maintenance. His ultimate goal was to establish if the “unsecured loans” originated from the sale of his valuable belongings. This information was needed so he could oppose the renewed bid for increased maintenance.
“The status quo is the applicant is paying maintenance in respect of the respondent and his children after the extant interim maintenance order, which includes hospital plan premiums, additional medical expenses, school fees, additional education expenses, including extramural activities, the running expenses in respect of the marital home, fuel for the respondent’s car as well as a cash contribution of R32,000 per month.
“Thus the prejudice to the respondent is minimal when considering the possible prejudice the applicant may suffer,” reads the judgment.
The court ruled in favour of the husband, suspending fresh interim maintenance variation proceedings, pending the outcome of an application by the woman's friend — yet to be decided — to set aside the subpoena seeking his financial records and that of his business.
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.