- WhatsApp messages showed repeated acknowledgment of debt and promises to repay.
- Silence when repayment was demanded counted against the respondent and supported the probabilities.
- Later denial was linked to emotional fallout after the breakup and motivated by resentment rather than contractual reality.
Romantic relationships and money often mix badly. In this case, the fallout landed in the South Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg.
Two married appellants, caught in a difficult spot in their marriage, loaned R610 000 to a woman with whom the first appellant was romantically involved. Years later, when the relationship collapsed, the respondent was no longer willing to pay back the funds. She claimed the money was a gift given out of affection, but Judge Lynn Windell ruled otherwise. She decided that the payments were loans repayable on demand.
The argument over intention
The court examined two payments made in 2017, R210 000 in cash and R400 000 via electronic transfer into the respondent’s personal account. The respondent later deposited these funds into her company’s account, Metalcare (Pty) Ltd, labeling the transaction as “Loan H Willemsen.” When the relationship ended, her position changed sharply. She claimed the money was never owed and that it represented a generous gift.
Judge Windell disagreed. Central to her decision were a series of WhatsApp exchanges where the respondent acknowledged the debt. In June 2018, she wrote, “Let me first sort out my life and then I will give you back your money.” In another message, she acknowledged, “I know I owe you,” and later asked, “please give me time.”
In January 2019, she initiated a conversation, saying, “I have been thinking about the money, and I will pay you back once I can.” Judge Windell noted that the respondent “never denied liability when asked to repay” and her explanations lacked any objective proof. She added, “Her later denial of owing money came only after the relationship ended and after the first plaintiff reconciled with his wife.”
Silence when faced with repeated requests for repayment was telling. Citing McWilliams v First Consolidated Holdings, Judge Windell stated that silence, when denial would be expected, “may be taken to constitute an admission of the truth.”
She emphasised that the respondent’s conduct “speaks volumes when viewed against ordinary human expectation.” She further noted, “Even if the first plaintiff’s motives were mixed, the objective documentary record confirms his version.”
When love turns sour
The court found it unlikely that a married man considering divorce would donate such a sum to a company in which he had no stake. The electronic messages were more persuasive, cutting through emotions that later clouded testimony.
Judge Windell stated that the respondent’s later denial “was fueled by personal resentment rather than factual truth.” She also pointed out, “It is improbable that any reasonable person would see such advances as gifts given the contemporaneous communications and banking records.”
Although the trial court called the first appellant “not an impressive witness,” the appeal court found that the documentary evidence was more convincing than subjective impressions. WhatsApp conversations, banking records, and the respondent’s earlier admissions met the legal standard. Judge Windell concluded, “The probabilities overwhelmingly favor the plaintiffs.”
Judgement upheld
The appeal succeeded, and the respondent must repay R610 000 plus interest and costs. For anyone mixing romance with money, the message is that affection is not a legal defense, and digital messages can carry more weight than courtroom testimony.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
