The court has ruled that a woman’s claim that a R610,000 she received from her ex-lover was a “gift of affection” was nothing more than resentment after their relationship went sour.
In a judgment delivered on Monday, judge Leonie Windell of the Johannesburg high court overturned a lower court’s decision that had absolved the defendant, the woman, from repaying the money to the plaintiffs, a married man who loaned her the funds back in 2017.
The plaintiffs, the man and his wife, who were married in community of property, said that the amounts of R210,000 and R400,000 were sent to the respondent after she promised to repay them on demand.
The man had separated from his wife when he formed a relationship with the respondent. He has since gone back to his marriage.
Windell found that the trial court had erred in dismissing the husband’s claim and that “objective documentary evidence” proved the payments were loans repayable on demand.
“While the trial court found the first plaintiff [man] to be an unimpressive witness, it failed to give proper weight to the objective documentary evidence. Even if the first plaintiff’s motives were mixed, the probabilities supported his version.
“The respondent’s silence in circumstances where repudiation would be expected justified an adverse inference. Her later denial of indebtedness arose only after the breakdown of the relationship and was motivated by personal resentment rather than factual truth,” she said.
The pair’s relationship began around 2015 while the plaintiff’s marriage was on the rocks. During that period, he advanced two large payments to his lover, who later deposited them into her personal account before transferring them to her company.
She recorded the transaction as “Loan H Willemsen”, a detail the court said undermined her later version.
The court said the respondent did not dispute receiving the money but maintained that it was a “donation made out of generosity and love” during her romantic relationship with the first plaintiff.
Windell, however, said the evidence, including WhatsApp messages, banking records and the defendant’s own payment references, painted a different picture.
Over months of conversations on WhatsApp, the respondent repeatedly acknowledged the debt.
In one message, she told the plaintiff: “Let me first sort out my life and then I will give you back your money.”
In another, she said: “I know I owe you. I will pay you as soon as I can.”
But when asked in court why she never disputed those messages, the respondent claimed she had stayed silent “to avoid conflict” and had used the word “loan” on her bookkeeper’s advice for tax purposes.
Willed found the explanation to be “unsupported and improbable.”
The court ordered her to repay the R610,000 with interest and cover the plaintiffs’ legal costs.
In her ruling, Windell said that the respondent only denied owing money after the romantic relationship ended and the first plaintiff reunited with his wife.
“Her statement that she had “wasted five years of [her] life” provides the emotional context for her change of stance — one driven by resentment, not by contractual reality," she said.
Sowetan
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.