A peculiar case of missing expensive wristwatches, gold and silver jewellery as well as other valuable objects and R3.8 million in cash from a man’s home after his now estranged wife had kicked him out of the matrimonial dwelling is part of the ongoing saga in their divorce proceedings.
The husband, who cannot be identified as divorce proceedings are pending, is on a quest to try to find out what happened to his belongings, including very expensive heirlooms.
He suspects that his wife, through her male friend, disposed of the items.
He is embroiled in lengthy legal proceedings at the Western Cape High Court in a bid to get closer to the truth.
In the latest application, he turned to court for an order for a temporary stay of proceedings where the male friend is trying to set aside a subpoena issued against him to disclose his banking transactions.
In the opening to his judgment, Judge Eduard Wille remarked that this seemed an “averagely unpleasant case”.
The estranged couple have been involved in various interlocutory applications for several years. The applicant - the husband - issued a subpoena against the third party - the wife’s friend - about 10 months ago, requesting the discovery of specific documentation which the applicant deemed necessary to advance his case in the divorce action with the respondent.
About five years ago, the respondent - the wife - lodged criminal charges against the applicant, culminating in his arrest at his now former marital home.
Months later, the wife withdrew the criminal charges, but she has since then steadfastly refused the husband access to his home. As a direct result of his “forced removal” from his home, most of his personal belongings remained at the family home and in the wife’s possession.
According to the husband these possessions include the expensive jewellery and millions in cash.
Because the husband was barred from his marital home, he requested his then attorneys to make arrangements with the wife's attorneys to collect his personal belongings.
The wife, however, refused entry to the attorneys. She had packed the husband’s clothes and other personal belongings in plastic garbage bags and stacked them at the entrance to the home.
The belongings did not include the expensive items and the money.
It was alleged that various subsequent attempts were made to collect these items from the home and that all these requests fell on deaf ears.
When the husband was eventually granted access to the home, he discovered that his valuable items and money were nowhere to be found. During this time, he said, his twin daughters told him their mother was wealthy as she had money adorned with “cheetahs”.
The husband said this undoubtedly referred to the R200 banknotes he left in the house.
The husband claimed that the friend, who is said to be “close friends” with the wife, is complicit because he admitted to selling jewellery on behalf of the wife in court papers.
About a year ago the husband issued a discovery notice to the wife in the divorce proceedings and requested specific documentation relating to several deposits made into her bank account.
The wife in turn stated that these deposits related to amounts lent to her by a friend and that no loan applications or agreements existed regarding these payments to her.
The documents furnished by the wife’s bankers showed that the money deposited into her account was done by the depositor under the heading of “loans”.
One of these accounts belonged to an entity styled “City Gold”, controlled by the close friend. The other account belonged to the “close friend”. It was also alleged that when these loans were advanced, the friend had been listed with a credit bureau.
The husband said that he saw his daughter recently wearing a gold chain that he believed belonged to his late grandmother. Upon enquiry, his daughter confided in him that the wife gave her this piece of jewellery.
The husband meanwhile 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 wife’s friend and the bank account of City Gold.
It is this subpoena that the friend and his company are vigorously opposing. An application has been piloted to set aside this subpoena because it is alleged that this process constitutes a “fishing expedition”.
The husband said he needed to establish if these unsecured loans originate from selling his belongings and that the subpoena is a bona fide attempt to secure documentary evidence in this regard.
The wife meantime launched an application to vary the interim maintenance he is paying her. The husband said he cannot respond to her application without first seeing the financial records pertaining to her friend. Thus, he said the latter’s opposition to the subpoena should be temporarily halted.