Xoliswa Ngema was caught out: She claimed she and her former lover, Gauteng cellphone millionaire Sifiso Dabengwa, had been married according to customary law and she was now entitled to 50 percent of his substantial estate.
But Ngema's claims were shredded by the defence and now the State Theatre CEO will have to return more than R500 000 in interim maintenance paid to her since the case began last year, as well as pay Dabengwa's huge legal costs.
It all started last year when Ngema instituted an action against Dabengwa, MTN's chief operating officer, claiming the couple had married in community of property in 2003 according to customary law.
She wanted a divorce and R35 000 per month in maintenance with full medical aid until she remarried or died.
She also wanted the court to grant her half of their joint estate, including Dabengwa's 10 percent investment in MTN, worth more than R204-million.
But Dabengwa denied the claims, saying he had never married Ngema and that they had been only engaged.
He admitted he had paid lobola of R20 000 and had bought her an engagement ring, but denied there had been a customary ceremony.
Ngema claimed that the ring was a wedding ring.
Early in the case, advocate Ronel Tolmay, SC, acting for Ngema, said Ngema had been called "umakoti", which in Ndebele meant she was a bride.
Tolmay pointed out that in terms of traditional law, the parties were married once lobola was paid. Ngema's expert witness, Dial Dayana Ndima, a senior lecturer at Unisa, testified that the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act required that a customary marriage be negotiated according to customary law. He believed the two were married in terms of customary laws.
But Dabengwa's expert, Professor Michael Wilhelm Prinsloo, said in his report that they had never been married in terms of customary law, as the essential requirements had not been complied with.
Dabengwa said Ngema's claim that they were married was "preposterous".
"I have at no stage entered into a marriage with the respondent and at no stage went through a ceremony where there was any intention on my part to marry her," he said.
"Had we married, it would most certainly have been a civil marriage where our property issues were legally dealt with. At best, the respondent and I lived together for about two months before I left for Nigeria and for two months after I returned.
"Had I married the respondent, there is no basis on which I would have left her in South Africa while I was in Nigeria for business for two years."
He added that Ngema's claim that they were married came as a "complete shock" to him and his family.
One of his relatives, Zimbabwean attorney Modecai Mahlangu, testified that although he helped negotiate the lobola, the two were never officially married in terms of customary law. Mahlangu explained that certain procedures had to follow a lobola payment before it could be constituted as a marriage. For example, the bride had to be "handed over" to the family of the bridegroom, which, in this case, did not happen.
While the case was proceeding, Ngema and Dabengwa launched various applications against each other, including one by Ngema for interim maintenance, which was granted, and Dabengwa was granted an eviction order to get Ngema out of his house.
After various witnesses testified, the defence led explosive evidence that the couple had never been married at all.
Dabengwa's attorney discovered documents in which Ngema referred to Dabengwa as her "fiance" and his mother as her "future mother-in-law".
Ngema's former attorney Jonathan Moyo testified for Dabengwa that Ngema had instructed him on December 3 2004 - after the date in 2003 that Ngema alleged she was married to Dabengwa - to draft a letter to the Zimbabwean Receiver of Revenue stating that a Mercedes-Benz donated to Pedia Dabengwa, her "future mother-in-law" had been a gift.
Ngema also signed a letter of donation and a cession of power of attorney dated December 3, 2004, wherein she referred to Dabengwa's mother as "mother to my fiance".
Ngema's senior counsel, advocate Brenda Neukircher, SC, confirmed Ngema's signature on the documents and informed the court she would not be cross-examining Moyo.
By January 26, Ngema's case lay in tatters. After the court's recess, Neukircher told the court she had been instructed to withdraw Ngema's entire case against Dabengwa.
Last Friday, the case resumed with parties scheduled to argue costs. Dabengwa wanted Ngema to pay punitive costs.
But when Dabengwa arrived with his lawyers, he discovered Ngema had fired her entire legal team.
She told the court she'd had only three hours to make the decision to withdraw her case and had not slept since, and that she would be represented by an acting judge from Cape Town, who would only be available in May.
This week Dabengwa's attorney Billy Gundelfinger said his client had been elated at Ngema's withdrawal of the case. However, he refused to comment further, because he said the issue of costs still had to be argued this months.