 (1).png){kind=spacer}
10 months ago
29
A man's claim that he had given a substantial amount of money to his mistress as a loan, with the expectation of repayment, was dismissed in the Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg.
PHOTO: Ashraf Hendricks/GroundUp
- The Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg has dismissed a couple's bid to force the man's former mistress to repay R610 000 he gave her during their affair.
- The man gave her the money while intending to divorce his wife.
- The court found that there was no documentation to support the man's claim that he had lent his mistress the money.
The Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg has dismissed a couple's bid to force the husband's former mistress to repay money he had given to her during their affair.
The man, who is married in community of property, had the affair around 2015. On 30 January, 1 February and 3 February 2017, he made three withdrawals from an investment account in his name, which amounted to just over R850 000 in cash.
READ | No legal duty to disclose an extramarital affair, High Court rules
According to evidence presented by the man, he transferred the money to his mistress to prevent his wife from obtaining it in the divorce proceedings he was intending to pursue at the time.
Some of the cash was stored in the mistress' bedroom and he pocketed the rest of it.
Judge Stuart Wilson said:
In the weeks following the cash withdrawals, [the man] gave R610 000 of the cash to his mistress. The question at the centre of this case is whether that amount was advanced as a loan to help her with her personal expenses, or whether it was instead a gift to her from a man who was intent on leaving his wife to join her.
The man told the court that the money was a loan, advanced in two amounts – one of R210 000 and another of R400 000 – which were repayable on demand.
However, the mistress claimed that the money was a donation to help her wind up her close corporation, which was at the time struggling to pay its debts. She had wanted to close the business and return to work as a salaried employee.
The court found that the mistress expected the man to follow through on his promise to divorce his wife.
READ | Woman loses battle over ex-husband's deceased estate after court rules in favour of his 2nd wife
The man said he did intend to leave his wife, but had not decided on whether or not to enter into a permanent and exclusive relationship with the mistress. He instead wanted to "wait and see" what happened with the divorce.
However, in the absence of documentary evidence, the court found that it would have been impossible to credit the man's claims that his intention at the time he advanced the money to his mistress was merely to lend it to her.
Wilson said:
In the end, I am left with mutually destructive versions of two witnesses.
"The only conclusion available on these facts is that neither party has proved their case. The onus being on [the man], an order of absolution from the instance is the only proper outcome," he added.
The court then dismissed the special plea and absolved the mistress from the instance with costs.
