Cape Town businessman sentenced after trying to take Mercedes-Benz from estranged wife - IOL

Businessman gets suspended jail sentence after men try to remove estranged wife’s Mercedes.

A Cape Town businessman has been found in contempt of court after he attempted to take back a Mercedes-Benz vehicle that a High Court order required him to make available to his estranged wife and their two minor children during their ongoing divorce proceedings.

The Western Cape High Court in Cape Town found that the businessman deliberately and in bad faith breached a 2021 Rule 43 order by sending people to collect the vehicle from his wife's home in February this year.

Judge M Francis sentenced him to 30 days' imprisonment but suspended the entire sentence for two years on condition that he continues making the Mercedes-Benz available to his wife and children and does not breach the interdict granted by the court.

The businessman and the applicant are married and involved in protracted divorce proceedings in the Western Cape High Court.

The Mercedes-Benz is registered in the name of CA Cellular Holdings CC, a close corporation of which the businessman is the sole member.

In May 2021, during the divorce proceedings, the court granted a Rule 43 order dealing with, among other things, his maintenance obligations.

Part of that order required him to continue making the Mercedes-Benz available for the use of his wife and their two minor children while the divorce proceedings were pending.

The order remained in force when the latest application was heard because no final divorce decree had been granted.

The dispute escalated in February 2026 after the businessman crashed the vehicle he was using while in Cape Town exercising contact with the children.

The following day, his attorneys wrote to the applicant's attorneys saying that she had since bought her own vehicle and that the reason for allowing her to use the Mercedes-Benz therefore no longer existed.

They said a towing company would collect the Mercedes and its keys.

However, the vehicle was not collected at that stage.

According to the judgment, on February 20, a man identified as Yusuf Williams stopped the applicant as she was leaving to fetch her children from school.

Williams told her he had been sent to collect the Mercedes-Benz.

He also contacted her attorney and described himself as an independent tracer, saying he was acting on instructions from the businessman's attorney.

Later that day, at Kensington police station, Williams allegedly told the applicant that she was only entitled to use the vehicle to transport the children and alleged that it was being used by her boyfriend.

Four days later, Williams returned to the applicant's home with two other men.

The men parked across her driveway, preventing her from leaving to fetch her children, and demanded that she hand over the Mercedes-Benz.

The applicant told the court that the men swore at her and threatened her, while saying they would obtain a locksmith and take the vehicle.

Her attorneys sent a candidate attorney, Ms Wiehman, to collect the children from school and take them to the applicant's sister, who lived next door.

When Wiehman confronted Williams, he produced the vehicle's registration documents.

She advised the men of the existing Rule 43 order.

The men eventually left but returned the following morning and repeated their demand for the Mercedes-Benz.

The businessman denied involvement in the events, but Judge Francis found that the evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that the men had been sent to collect the vehicle on his instructions.

The judge noted that the businessman had not filed an affidavit responding to the merits of the contempt application, despite being given two opportunities to do so.

His attorney had, however, confirmed in court that the businessman had instructed a towing company to collect the vehicle.

The judge also considered the fact that Williams had possession of the registration documents belonging to CA Cellular Holdings CC.

The court found that Williams could not have obtained those documents without the involvement of the close corporation or the businessman who controlled it.

In addition, the businessman's attorneys later confirmed in writing that he had authorised someone to collect the vehicle on behalf of the close corporation.

When his son questioned him via WhatsApp about why he was trying to take the vehicle, the businessman did not deny doing so and instead said the vehicle was his.

“An order of the court binds until it is varied or set aside,” Judge Francis found, explaining that the businessman had a remedy if he believed circumstances had changed.

He could have approached the court under Rule 43(6) to seek a variation of the order because of a material change in circumstances.

The businessman argued that circumstances had changed because his own vehicle had been damaged in a collision and his wife had bought another car.

The court accepted that these circumstances existed but rejected the suggestion that they provided a defence to the contempt proceedings.

Judge Francis said the businessman understood what the Rule 43 order required.

His argument was not that he misunderstood the order, but that he believed it should no longer apply.

“He formed his own view of what paragraph 1.4 was for, decided that it no longer served that purpose, and gave effect to that view by engaging Williams,” the judge said.

The court found that this did not raise a reasonable doubt about whether his conduct was wilful and in bad faith.

The judge also considered significant the fact that the men returned the morning after being shown the Rule 43 order.

“If a litigant honestly believes an order has ceased to bind him, he applies to be released from it. He does not send men to take the thing by self-help,” Judge Francis said.

The court consequently found the businessman guilty of contempt beyond reasonable doubt.

The respondents argued that the businessman could not be found in contempt because the Mercedes-Benz was never actually taken from the applicant.

The court rejected the argument, finding that the breach of the Rule 43 order had already occurred.

Judge Francis said the businessman was under a positive and ongoing obligation to make the vehicle available to the applicant and the children.

By sending people to retrieve the Mercedes without first obtaining a variation of the court order, he had breached that obligation.

The judge said the fact that the men ultimately left without the vehicle went to the consequences of the contempt rather than whether contempt had occurred.

The court therefore did not have to decide whether an attempted breach, without actual non-compliance, could constitute contempt because, on the facts, the breach was complete.

The court also granted a final interdict against the businessman and CA Cellular Holdings CC.

They were prohibited from taking any steps to dispossess the applicant of the Mercedes-Benz, unless authorised by the court.

They were further prohibited from contacting her except through her attorneys, with an exception for communications by the businessman that were reasonably necessary concerning the minor children.

The respondents were also restrained from harassing, threatening or intimidating the applicant, or instructing third parties to do so.

Judge Francis said the applicant had a right to possess the vehicle and could not lawfully be dispossessed except through due legal process.

The court found that the threat of further interference was reasonably apprehended, despite an undertaking previously given by the businessman's attorneys that the vehicle would not be removed pending the outcome of the application.

The judge noted that the undertaking only dealt with the vehicle and did not address the applicant's concerns about contact, harassment or the involvement of third parties.

In determining the appropriate sanction, the court said imprisonment should only be imposed on the papers in a clear case.

However, Judge Francis found that a fine would not adequately reflect the seriousness of the conduct.

The court described the conduct as a deliberate resort to self-help against a court order, pursued at the applicant's home over two days and renewed after the men had been informed of the court order.

The businessman was therefore sentenced to 30 days in prison. However, the sentence was fully suspended for two years.

The sentence can only be activated if he breaches the conditions of suspension and the applicant returns to court and proves the breach beyond reasonable doubt.

The court ordered the businessman and CA Cellular Holdings CC to pay the costs of the application jointly and severally on the attorney-and-client scale.

Judge Francis found that the applicant had been forced to approach the court because of conduct that the businessman had never properly justified on oath.

The judge said the businessman had been given opportunities to respond to the merits but had failed to do so.

The court also criticised the applicant for initially failing to disclose the February 2 letter in which the businessman had notified her that he intended to retrieve the Mercedes-Benz.

However, the judge found that the omission did not change the outcome because the letter ultimately strengthened rather than weakened the applicant's case.