A legal battle over spousal and child support between a senior Gauteng metro official and his estranged wife has exposed their lavish lifestyle, which includes an R18m house in Bryanston and a fleet of supercars.
Also mentioned in court papers is a R1.7m kitchen renovation as well as shopping sprees for perfumes worth R14,000 and a R13,000 pair of Dolce & Gabbana sneakers for their young child.
The couple may not be named owing to legal restrictions on the reporting of divorce proceedings. The respondent is the CFO at a Gauteng metro and earns R124,000 a month.
However, his estranged wife is asking for a whopping R224,000 a month.
In a bid to convince the court of the reasonableness of her claim, she has revealed salacious details of their lifestyles, including several multimillion-rand homes in Mpumalanga and Gauteng, lavish shopping sprees paid for in cash, first-class international travel, cosmetic surgeries for her costing hundreds of thousands of rand, as well as a Range Rover “sorry gift” when her husband fathered a child outside their marriage.
“We enjoyed, and the respondent continues to enjoy, an extravagant and lavish lifestyle in every respect — we wanted for nothing, [and money was] no object at all,” she said in court papers.
It beggars belief that a young couple such as the parties to this application were able to amass the wealth described in the affidavits
— Acting judge Sarita Liebenberg
Details of the couple’s lifestyle left Johannesburg high court acting judge Sarita Liebenberg astonished at how quickly the young couple’s wealth had been accumulated — and also upset at their lack of candour about the source of it.
The couple’s income was largely through money flows from private companies allegedly controlled behind the scenes by the husband to two trusts linked to him and his family, as well as a company owned by her sister, which she claims were camouflaged as consultancy fees, as well as rentals from properties owned by them.
Through her legal team, the wife said in court papers that her husband “via the companies has kept himself ostensibly distanced from the acquisition of the substantial assets which have been acquired by him”.
“Many of the transactions, which are contrived to appear to be at arm’s length and unrelated to the respondent, are simulated. As a consequence, he is able to facilitate the amassing of assets and wealth and continue living an opulent and luxurious lifestyle without scrutiny.
“The respondent brags about his wealth and told the applicant that he carries R500,000 in a bag in the boot of his car. The respondent boasts ‘that nothing will be traced back to him’”, it was added.
The judge was perplexed by the parties’ coy behaviour with regard to the source of the assets in the trust.
“The respondent, who appears to be the controlling mind behind the trusts, contends that the affairs of the trusts are irrelevant to this application, and did not favour this court with annual financial statements or bank statements of either of the two trusts. The respondent’s stance on the relevancy of the trusts is not only patently incorrect, but smacks of a spouse who seeks to subscribe to the “catch me if you can” litigation strategy,” Liebenberg said.
Assets in the trusts, part of a stable of 10 properties estimated to be worth R36m, include a R9.5m house in The Rest Nature Estate in Mbombela, in which the applicant and her son reside; a R2m home in Fourways, Johannesburg; an R18m house in Bryanston, Johannesburg; and another R5.7m home in Mbombela that was acquired this year.
All these homes are unencumbered. The applicant detailed how her husband had set up a company for her that never traded but received an average of R107,000 in monthly deposits from him for her personal expenses.
In addition to this, she claimed her husband deposited R10,000 into her credit card account every week. However, bank statements she submitted to the court showed the deposits were monthly, not weekly.
In 2021 and 2022, another R5.6m was paid to the estranged wife by her husband electronically and in cash deposits, through her sister’s company. Of this amount, some R1.7m was spent on kitchen renovations at the matrimonial home. The applicant was also often gifted with designer clothing, jewellery and sunglasses, expensive R14,000 perfumes, skincare products and makeup purchased in cash from the Diamond Walk section of Sandton City shopping centre in Johannesburg.
There was always money to purchase whatever our hearts desired, including luxury motor vehicles
Her son was treated to a R88,000 shopping spree last December. This included designer T-shirts, a R13,000 pair of Dolce & Gabbana sneakers, Balenciaga footwear, and a R5,000 hair treatment at Franco’s salon.
“There was always money to purchase whatever our hearts desired, including luxury motor vehicles,” she was quoted as saying in the court papers.
In her ruling, Liebenberg said she would have struck the case off the roll were it not for the couple’s minor son.
“It beggars belief that a young couple such as the parties to this application were able to amass the wealth described in the affidavits, the majority of which is held in two trusts — the family trust registered in 2016 and a business trust registered in 2021.
“Keeping his cards very close to his chest, the respondent gave no indication of how the acquisition of his wealth was financed,” she said. “By all accounts, the parties enjoyed, and continue to enjoy, a lifestyle far beyond that of ‘ordinary’ people.
“During their cohabitation, and thereafter, the parties travelled abroad relatively often, travelling first class. They drove, and continue to drive, a veritable fleet of supercars and other expensive vehicles, including a Porsche Targa; a 2023 model Porsche 911 Turbo (worth about R6m), which the applicant says the respondent uses as a “leisure” vehicle, which he denies; a 2023 BMW X6 M50d, which the respondent currently uses as a “work” vehicle; no less than two Range Rovers, [one of which has] a personalised number plate referencing the applicant’s name and birth date; two BMW 125is; an older-model BMW X6; a Mercedes-Benz CLA 45; a Toyota Hilux Single Cab; and a brand-new Volkswagen Golf 8 R.
“In December 2023, the applicant acquired a Maserati Levante vehicle at a discounted price of R2.2m, the majority of which she financed,” Liebenberg added.
“The respondent denies he owns or owned all these vehicles, explaining that he only had the use [of them] on special occasions.
“The older BMW X6, which the applicant [used] until December 2023, was registered in the name of the respondent’s mother. The respondent owns four of the vehicles, but the supercars, he explains, are registered in the name of a third party,” she added.
Liebenberg also found that, up until November 2023, the wife received an average of R107,000 a month in maintenance from her husband, the extra R32,500 being the proceeds of rentals derived from properties owned by one of the trusts.
In addition to the R224,519 she sought for maintenance, the estranged wife wanted additional expenses covered, including levies, rates and utilities costs, as well as swimming pool maintenance, for her home at The Rest Nature Reserve; rates and taxes in respect of two other properties; TV licence fees; DStv premiums; the costs of a Telkom line and phone; ADSL and internet expenses; as well as salaries and annual bonuses for her domestic helper and gardener.
She also wanted money for tyres, brake pads and a licence for her Maserati SUV; funds for her child’s educational expenses; and R600,000 for legal fees incurred in the divorce.
In response, her husband has tendered R15,000 a month for his son and R14,227 towards The Rest property for rates, taxes, levies and utilities.
In his version, the husband contended his only source of income was his monthly salary of R123,924, while his monthly expenses totalled R169,358, including his maintenance contribution towards his child and other direct expenses his wife was claiming.
He also sought to explain the payments from the company, the name of which is known to the Sunday Times, as fees for consulting work done before he joined the metro.
When contacted for comment on Saturday morning, the husband said, through his attorney Tshepo Mathopo, the time he had been given for responses was unreasonable.
“We cannot confirm or deny that one of the individuals referred to in the judgment is our client,” Mathopo said.
“As we understand the issues, the judgment that you refer to is not final and the divorce proceedings are still ongoing. The identity of the parties to that judgment were not disclosed, and thus [we] wonder how you came to the conclusion that the judgment relates to a matter involving our client.
In court papers, the husband denied owning the various Porsches, saying the only vehicles in his estate were an 11-year-old BMW 135i, a 2017 Mercedes-Benz CLA 45, a Toyota Hilux, and a 2023 BMW X6 M50d.
“The Range Rover Lumma was also transferred fraudulently into the name of the applicant’s sister, and the vehicle was subsequently sold. This is exactly what transpired with both the Porsche Targa and my mother’s BMW X6 M,” he said.
Liebenberg ultimately ordered that the wife be paid R67,000 in monthly maintenance, educational expenses for the child, as well as other costs.
She also ordered that the husband pay for the ADSL; insurance premiums for the house; homeowners’ insurance; wages for the domestic help, plus annual bonuses; as well as R250,000 for legal costs. The divorce action is ongoing.
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.