A husband has taken his estranged wife and her friend to court, seeking access to bank statements that he believes will reveal the use of his R3.8 million and proceeds from his valuable jewellery collection.
Five years ago, the wife filed criminal charges against him, leading to his arrest and subsequent release on bail with a condition barring him from entering their marital home.
Despite the charges being withdrawn months later, the wife continued to deny him access to the home.
As a result, the husband alleges that he was unable to retrieve his personal belongings, including expensive wristwatches, inherited jewellery, collectable coins, R3.8 million in cash, and ‘Mandela Coins’ belonging to a discrete company.
Efforts by his attorneys to collect these items from the marital home were unsuccessful, with the wife only allowing his clothes and other belongings to be packed in garbage bags at the entrance.
Even after being granted legal permission to enter the home, he found his valuables and money missing.
The husband's suspicions were further aroused when he learned from his daughters that their mother had money adorned with "Cheetahs," which he interpreted as the R200 banknotes he had left, and when he saw one of his daughters wearing a gold chain he recognized as belonging to his late grandmother.
He believes his wife has used his money and sold his possessions, possibly with the help of her friend, who admitted to selling jewellery on her behalf and was present during his arrest.
During the divorce proceedings, he issued a discovery notice for all deposits made to her bank accounts. In response, the wife claimed the deposits were loans from a friend, with no formal agreements.
Subsequent bank records showed that these 'loans' originated from two accounts belonging to the wife’s friend, who was listed with a credit bureau at the time.
The husband's attempt to subpoena the friend's bank statements was met with opposition, labelling it a ‘fishing expedition.’
An application to set aside this subpoena is scheduled for hearing early next year.
Impatient with the delay, the husband approached the Western Cape High Court in Cape Town to dismiss the friend's application.
He argues that these documents are crucial for the divorce proceedings, particularly for determining the source of the funds and whether they are linked to the sale of his belongings.
This information, he contends, is also vital for the interim spousal maintenance application filed by his wife.
However, Judge Derek Wille indicated that this application might be unsuccessful as it is considered premature, with the matter already scheduled for next year.
Consequently, he set aside the wife’s spousal maintenance application due to the pending financial documents, which could significantly impact her financial standing.
IOL