Court orders girlfriend to repay R610,000 after cheating husband’s appeal
High Court orders girlfriend to repay R610,000 to cheating husband after ruling in his favour during appeal
Image: supplied
A cheating husband who gave his girlfriend R610,000 in an attempt to hide it from his wife in an event that they divorce, won an appeal after the South Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg ordered the girlfriend to pay back the money.
The appeal comes after the November 2023 ruling absolved the girlfriend from any liability.
The man only identified as HW is married in community of property to SJW.
In 2015, HW began an extramarital affair with RS and in 2017, he made three withdrawals in amount of over R850,000 from his investment account.
The withdrawal was an attempt to conceal the money from his wife in the event of a divorce. He transferred R610,000 to RS, advanced in two payments: R210,000 and R400,000.
Along the way, his relationship with RS became turbulent and they went their separate ways. Following the failure of the relationship, he demanded a repayment of the money saying it was a loan.
When he realised that he won’t get the funds, he sought relief at the high court and joined the wife in suing the girlfriend by virtue of their marriage in community of property.
However, the girlfriend insisted that it was a donation to help her wind up her business, which was at the time struggling to pay its debts.
In addition, she said she also expected HW to follow through on his promise to divorce JW, again, she considered the money as a sign that he would leave his wife and devote himself exclusively to her.
In his defence, the husband said that he did intend to leave his wife, but he had not finally decided whether to enter a permanent and exclusive relationship with RS, he said he wanted to “wait and see” what happened with the divorce.
After listening to both arguments, Judge Stuart David James Wilson said he had serious doubts about the husband’s credibility and reliability because at the heart of his case, was an act of dishonesty as his intention was to scheme money away from his wife.
Judge Wilson said the husband failed to prove his case, and he ruled in favour of RS.
During the appeal, a full bench in the high court presided over the matter and considered WhatsApp messages between RS and HW where he repeatedly referred the payments as “money I lent you” and asked, “when will you be able to pay back what you owe me?”.
In response, RS did not dispute these assertions. Instead, she responded with messages such as “I know I owe you,” “I will pay you as soon as I can,” and “please give me time.”
In a message dated June 4, 2018, RS said: “Let me first sort out my life and then I will give you back your money.” Similar exchanges followed on 11 and 21 June and again on July 10, 2018, when RS promised to “start paying soon.”
The court said the WhatsApp communications form a contemporaneous and candid record of the parties’ dealings. They contain repeated acknowledgments by RS that she owed the money and made promises to repay it.
Moreover, the court said it was improbable that HW, in the context of a strained marriage and a contemplated divorce, would gratuitously donate R610 000 to a company in which he had no financial or proprietary interest.
"On a holistic assessment of the evidence, the plaintiffs (husband and wife) discharged the onus of proof. The WhatsApp messages, the defendant’s (girlfriend) own banking records, and the surrounding circumstances demonstrate that the advances were loans," read the judgment.
RS has been ordered to pay back the money in interest as well as the cost of the application.
IOL News
Get your news on the go. Download the latest IOL App for Android and IOS now.