Cheating husband wins appeal — girlfriend ordered to repay R610,000 “loan” meant to hide cash from wife
A Johannesburg businessman who tried to conceal money from his wife by transferring R610,000 to his mistress has won his appeal after the South Gauteng High Court ruled that the woman must pay back the money with interest.
The man, identified in court papers only as HW, had been married in community of property to SJW when he started an extramarital affair with RS in 2015. Two years later, he withdrew over R850,000 from his investment account and transferred R610,000 to his girlfriend, in what he later described as a loan.
The payments, made in two instalments of R210,000 and R400,000, were intended to conceal part of his assets from his wife in the event of a divorce. However, when the relationship between HW and RS soured, he demanded repayment — a demand she flatly refused.
RS maintained that the money was a gift given out of affection and trust. She told the court that HW had promised to divorce his wife and that she viewed the money as a gesture confirming his commitment to start a new life with her.
But HW said his motive was less romantic — he admitted he was attempting to keep the money out of his wife’s reach should their marriage end. While he had considered leaving his wife, he told the court he was still undecided about entering into a permanent relationship with RS, preferring to “wait and see what happened” with the divorce proceedings.
‘Dishonest motives’ clouded husband’s case
When the matter was first heard in November 2023, Judge Stuart David James Wilson dismissed the husband’s claim, ruling in favour of the girlfriend.
Judge Wilson said he had serious doubts about HW’s credibility, describing his actions as “rooted in dishonesty” since the purpose of the transaction was to hide money from his wife.
“At the heart of his case was an act of deceit,” Judge Wilson observed. “It would be inappropriate to allow him to succeed in circumstances where the purpose of the alleged loan was to defeat his spouse’s rightful claim to joint property.”
The judge concluded that the husband had failed to prove that the R610,000 was a loan and not a gift, effectively freeing RS from liability.
WhatsApp messages turned the tide
However, HW appealed the ruling, and a full bench of the High Court re-examined the matter. The appeal judges took a different view — largely because of WhatsApp messages exchanged between the two lovers.
These messages, the court said, provided direct and contemporaneous evidence that the girlfriend knew she owed the money and had promised to repay it.
In several messages, HW referred to the funds as “money I lent you” and asked, “When will you be able to pay back what you owe me?”
RS did not dispute those statements. 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 one message dated 4 June 2018, RS wrote: “Let me first sort out my life and then I will give you back your money.” Similar exchanges were recorded on 11 and 21 June, and again on 10 July 2018, when she promised to “start paying soon.”
The appeal court found that these repeated acknowledgements of debt left little room for doubt.
“The WhatsApp communications form a candid record of the parties’ dealings,” the judges said. “They contain repeated acknowledgements by the defendant that she owed the money and made promises to repay it.”
Court rejects donation claim
The court further ruled that it was highly improbable that HW would have donated such a large amount to his mistress, given that his marriage was already strained and he was considering divorce.
“On a holistic assessment of the evidence,” the judges said, “the plaintiffs (HW and SJW) discharged the onus of proof. The WhatsApp messages, the defendant’s banking records, and the surrounding circumstances demonstrate that the advances were loans.”
The bench also took into account that the funds had been transferred from HW’s personal investment account — not a joint or business account — and that RS’s claim about using the money to wind up her struggling business did not hold up under scrutiny.
Girlfriend ordered to repay with interest
The court overturned the earlier ruling and ordered RS to repay the R610,000, together with interest and legal costs.
It held that the earlier judgment had erred by giving undue weight to the husband’s dishonesty toward his wife, rather than the legal nature of the transaction between him and RS.
“The fact that the plaintiff’s motive may have been to conceal the money from his wife does not alter the legal character of the transaction,” the judges stated. “A loan remains a loan, regardless of the motive behind it.”
The judgment serves as a cautionary tale about mixing romance and finances — and about how digital messages can later come back to haunt those involved.
Follow Us on Twitter
