A wealthy woman who married an unemployed man 17 years younger than her and showered him with expensive gifts before and during their short-lived marriage, now upon their divorce asked the court to order that he forfeit the house and sports car which she had bought him.
The wife turned to the Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg, where she complained that in spite of an undertaking and a subsequent court order, he had cleared one of her bank accounts.
Although she chose to marry him in community of property, she said his conduct warrants that he forfeit half of the estate.
The plaintiff instituted a divorce action against the husband after a slightly more than two-year marriage. The husband, in response to the wife’s forfeiture application, asked that she forfeits the same immovable property and two motor vehicles in his possession, which includes an Audi A3 which she had bought for him while they were still courting.
The wife is a citizen of the United Kingdom, and the husband is a South African citizen. The parties met and fell in love with each other in Windhoek, Namibia in 2014. When the husband stopped working in 2015, both left Namibia and relocated to South Africa to start a new life together.
When the couple met, the woman was in the process of divorce from her marriage relationship of 18 years. As part of a divorce settlement from that marriage, she received certain funds that were deposited into the present husband's (defendant) banking account.
Of the funds received, the defendant transferred an amount of R1,024,000.00 into another account held by him. This account was controlled by him and the wife was only receiving notifications of the transactions in the account.
The wife also sold one of her immovable properties worth 4,500,000.00 Namibian dollars situated in Namibia and used part of the proceeds from the sale to buy the parties’ marital home situated in Oakland Park for R2.7-m.
Due to the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, the wife left the marital home and relocated to the United Kingdom in November 2018.
Acting Judge JL Bhengu considered the fact that the plaintiff was 17 years older than the defendant and was undoubtedly ahead of him in life with finances. Her total estate was valued at approximately R6-m at the time of the marriage.
The defendant, on the other hand, stated that when he met the plaintiff, he was living a modest life. He was working as a material systems controller at a uranium mine. He had a house in Roodepoort worth about R600,000.00, a stand in Carletonville, a Colt L 200 bakkie, a VW Golf and a Polo Cross (scrap).
He was introduced to the lavish lifestyle consisting of an expensive motor vehicle, family holidays, expensive clothes and gadgets. The plaintiff even paid for the wedding expenses and took care of the defendant’s son from a previous relationship.
He stated that when he resigned from his job in Namibia, the plaintiff promised him that she would support and help him to start a business with the money from the (previous) divorce settlement.
“Having regard to these facts, it is clear that the defendant will be benefited if a forfeiture order is not made,” the judge said.
He noted that it was a short-lived marriage and that both parties blamed each other for the breakdown of the marriage. The wife alleged that soon after their marriage, the husband stopped showing love and care towards her. He was contemptuous towards her on a daily basis. He would at times ignore her for no reason, she said.
The husband, in turn, claimed she was the one who was controlling and abused him emotionally because she came into the relationship with lots of money. He stated that the plaintiff encouraged him to quit his work in Namibia by promising to assist him financially with the money from the divorce settlement to set up different business ventures in South Africa.
The plaintiff contended that the defendant should forfeit the benefit to the house and cars because he was the cause of the breakdown of the marriage due to the allegations of abuse. She alleged that the defendant never contributed anything towards the joint estate. She alleged that after she moved back to the UK, she was still paying the gardener for regular gardening and repairs to the pool whilst the defendant was living in the house, rent-free, mortgage-free and collecting approximately an amount of R7,000.00 from renting out the cottage.
The husband, however, said since his wife left for the UK, he has been the one responsible for the maintenance of the house and all motor vehicles, as well as for many other expenses.
The court ordered that the husband must forfeit R1,076,859.93 previously held in the flexi account, which he moved to another account. But the court concluded that the rest of the assets must be split between them.
WhatsApp your views on this story at 071 485 7995.
Pretoria News