THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
JUDGMENT

Not reportable
Case no:
916/12

In the matter between:

NICK CHRISTELIS NO

First Appellant
ANNA CHARALAMBO CHRISTELIS NO             Second Appellant
OLGA LEONARD NO

Third Appellant
and
VICTORIA LENA MEYER NO

First Respondent
ELENA JOAQUIM NO

Second Respondent
EMMANUEL CHRISTELIS NO

Third Respondent
Neutral citation: Christelis NO v Meyer NO (916/12) [2014] ZASCA
53 (16 April 2014)
Coram:
MTHIYANE DP, MHLANTLA and WALLIS JJA,
LEGODI and MATHOPO AJJA.
Heard:
7 March 2014
Delivered: 16 April 2014
Summary: Claim in terms of lex furtiva – requirements – proof of
existence of assets the subject of the claim and that they had been
disposed of with knowledge of the plaintiff‘s claim – evidence
unsatisfactory.

ORDER

On appeal from: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg (Monama J
sitting as court of first instance):
1 The appeal is dismissed with costs, such costs to include those
consequent upon the employment of two counsel, but subject to
the further orders set out below.
2 The respondents shall not be entitled to recover their costs of
complying with rule 8(9) of the Rules of this Court and 40% of
the costs of perusal of the record.
3 None of the legal practitioners, whether representing the appellants
or the respondents, shall be entitled to recover from their clients
any costs in relation to the preparation and lodging of revised
records or the revised heads of argument.

JUDGMENT

Wallis JA (Mthiyane DP, Mhlantla JA and Mathopo AJA
concurring)
[1] Peter and Alfred (known as Lef, Left or Lefty) Christelis were
identical twins born on 2 February 1918. They left school early to work in
their father‘s shop and proved to be adept businessmen. The principal
source of their success was a sweet factory in Germiston, but they
branched out into other activities, including property development and
money lending. In the result they became wealthy. That wealth was

shared between them equally, the relationship being so close that, as Lef
said after his brother‘s death, they did everything together and shared
everything so that the relationship was one of universal partnership. The
complete lack of separation between their business interests and assets is
the source of the present litigation, which is between their respective
executors and heirs. The first and third appellants are Peter‘s children and
the second appellant is his widow. The respondents are Lef‘s children.
The allegation by the appellants is that after Peter‘s death on 9 February
2003 and prior to his death on 7 October 2007, Lef removed, concealed
and disposed of jointly owned assets. Their claim to recover the value of
the allegedly missing assets was dismissed by Monama J, but he gave
leave to appeal to this court.

[2] The brothers owned the sweet factory and a number of property
owning companies. The sweet factory has been disposed of and the
property companies divided between the two families. Apart from these
assets it is said that the twins held their wealth in hard assets such as
diamonds, Kruger Rands and jewellery, and in negotiable certificates of
deposit (NCDs) issued by banks. These were said to have existed when
Peter died and they have not been accounted for. Some items of jewellery
and a number of Kruger Rands were discovered shortly prior to Lef‘s
death when a search was made at his house. These have been divided
between the two families, but they are said to be but a fraction of all the
assets of these types that were owned by the twins. The claim relates to
the allegedly missing hard assets.

[3] The twins were secretive by nature and shared matters only
between themselves. They were frugal people, apart from a shared
passion for gambling at casinos, and did not display their wealth. They

did not share the details of their businesses with their immediate families
or any advisers. Nor did they share the details with the income tax
authorities. In fact they took active steps to disguise the source of their
income from them. Thus, for example, they would purchase winning
tickets on the totalisator at more than their face value and then cash them
with the totalisator board. This enabled them to claim that gambling
winnings were the source of some of their assets, even though the
evidence is that they had no interest in betting on horses. It is no surprise
therefore that there are few documents of any significance that assist in
identifying assets of the type that give rise to the appellants‘ claims. The
appellants allege that the value of the allegedly missing assets is of the
order of R40 to R50 million.

[4] The respondents disavow any knowledge of the existence of such
assets, although it was originally alleged that they knew of their existence
and were concealing them. However, in response to a question from the
bench in this Court, counsel disavowed any reliance on such a case. We
are therefore only concerned with a contention that the assets existed at
the time of Peter‘s death; were in Lef‘s possession; and their present
whereabouts are unknown. We are asked to draw the inference that Lef
disposed of them, knowing that they were jointly owned and that he was
obliged to account to his late brother‘s estate for them.

[5] Some detail of the assets forming the subject of the claim is
necessary. They are described in para 8 of the particulars of claim in the
following terms:
‗(a)
one box full of diamonds separated by and/or packaged in white paper sheets
consisting of 1,500 carats with a value (calculated at $5,000.00 per carat) of $7,5
million equating to approximately R57, 375,000;

(b)
Negotiable Certificates of Deposit issued by Nedbank Limited and First
National Bank Limited and/or Mercantile Bank Limited together with interest at 13%
having a value of R19 million;
(c)
at least one thousand Kruger Rands, having a value of R6,5 million;
(d)
three gold Rolex watches, having a total value of R600, 000;
(e)
the balance of items of jewellery referred to by the late Peter Nicholas
Christelis and the late Alfred Nicholas Christelis as ―Eleni‘s jewellery‖ which the late
Alfred Nicholas Christelis valued (and the which value the Claimants for the purpose
of this claim accept) at between R3-5 million;
(f)
jewellery, having a value of not less than R3 Million consisting  inter alia of
the following [and here followed a list of 21 items].‘

[6] The conduct of the trial was complicated by an order, ultimately
taken by consent, in terms of which the quantities of the assets described
in paras (a) to (e) and the value or valuations of all these assets were to be
excluded from consideration by the trial court. That was an inappropriate
order to have made, bearing in mind that the relief being sought, after this
order was granted, was in the form of declaratory orders that at the date
of Peter‘s death he and Lef were co-owners of the described assets and
that, after Peter‘s death, Lef stole or disposed of the assets with
knowledge of the claim by Peter‘s estate thereto.

[7] A declaratory order in regard to the ownership of property not
identified in that order is nonsensical. Take the claim in relation to NCDs.
The court was asked to make an order in relation to them with absolutely
no means of identification whatsoever. The order formulated in the
course of the appeal was a declaration of co-ownership in relation to:
‗The negotiable certificates of deposit issued by Nedbank, First National Bank and
Mercantile Bank to which the estate of the late Peter is entitled to the share of the
proceeds thereof.‘

The order is circular because there is no entitlement to it without proof
that NCDs existed to which the estate of Peter had a claim. I am unable to
see on what conceivable basis it could be implemented or made the
subject of further proceedings. That is because one does not know to what
it relates. The similar orders sought in respect of a box of diamonds or an
indeterminate number of Kruger Rands would also be meaningless. The
claim in respect of the three Rolex watches was abandoned in the course
of argument in this court, but either there were three Rolex watches or
there were not, and if they existed they needed to be clearly identified so
that, when the court came to deal with the next stage of the case, it would
know what  the subject matter of the dispute was.

[8] This court has repeatedly pointed out that there should only be a
separation of issues when the issues that are separated are both clearly
defined and capable of being determined without reference to the
remaining issues in the case.1 If that is not done the trial proceeds on an
unrealistic basis. The unreality of it in the present case is illustrated by
counsel‘s opening address in which he told the judge that they were
concerned with ‗what was there and was it co-owned‘. But the whole
point of the separation order, as he repeatedly pointed out in argument in
this court, was that the trial court was not concerned with what was there,
because the issue of quantities was excluded from consideration. The end
result is that we are asked to make an order in this appeal that will resolve
no issue between the parties and result in further lengthy and, no doubt,
expensive litigation over the quantities of the assets to which the
declaratory order applies. An enquiry from the bench as to the evidence
available to prove the quantities of these assets received the cryptic

1 Denel (Edms) Bpk v Vorster 2004 (4) SA 481 (SCA) para 3; Adlem and Another v Arlow 2013 (3) SA
1 (SCA) para 5.

response that reliance would be placed on statistical evidence. Without
further clarification, I can only say that it is wholly unclear to me on what
basis it is thought that statistical evidence can establish how many
diamonds or Kruger Rands (if any) the secretive Christelis twins jointly
owned at the date of Peter‘s death. And if one cannot prove the quantities
there is no point in a declaratory order that means no more than that at
that date they owned some diamonds or gold coins jointly. However, in
view of the conclusion I have reached about the fate of the appeal it is
unnecessary to give further consideration to this.

[9] Returning to the pleadings it was alleged that Lef ‗unlawfully and
intentionally committed theft of the assets alternatively disposed of them
with knowledge of the Plaintiff‘s claim‘. In advancing this claim in
argument before us reliance was placed solely on the actio furtiva as
expounded in Clifford v Farinha2 and Chetty v Italtile Ceramics Ltd.3 For
that reason, unlike my colleague, I find it unnecessary to deal with the
actio ad exhibendum, which was briefly referred to in the heads of
argument as an alternative basis for the claim. It is as well to examine the
legal footing for the claim before turning to consider whether the trial
judge was correct in holding that the appellants did not discharge the onus
of proving that claim.

[10] In para 10 of his judgment in Chetty, Malan JA summarised the
law relating to claims based on an alleged theft (the condictio furtiva) in
the following terms:
‗The condictio furtiva is a remedy the owner of, or someone with an interest in, a
thing has against a thief and his heirs for damages. It is generally characterised as a

2 Clifford v Farinha 1988 (4) SA 315 (W).
3 Chetty v Italtile Ceramics Ltd 2013 (3) SA 374 (SCA).

delictual action. It is, of course, required that the object involved be stolen before the
condictio can find application. The law requires for the crime of theft —
―not only that the thing should have been taken without belief that the owner … had
consented or would have consented to the taking, but also that the taker should have
intended to terminate the owner's enjoyment of his rights or, in other words, to
deprive him of the whole benefit of his ownership‖.
However, at common law ―theft‖ has a wider meaning and includes furtum usus, or
the appropriation of the use of another's thing. Theft of the use of another person's
thing is no longer a crime. The condictio furtiva lies in all cases of theft — ―whether
the theft wreaked was one of proprietorship or of use or possession … makes no
difference to the possibility of the action being available‖.  In Clifford v Farinha it
was stated with regard to the condictio furtiva:
―(T)he benemer — to use the term of De Groot 3.37.3 — does something which he is
not permitted by law to do, namely, to arrogate to himself the power to deal with
another's property. Thereby he incurs an obligation of the thief immediately to undo
what he has done. Whether the obligation of the thief immediately to restore what he
has stolen is classified as part of the mora doctrine … or as simply arising from the
delict … the thief is … regarded as being in default … and the obligation to restore —
is perpetuated …‖
The intention to appropriate the thing permanently, as in the case of criminal theft, is
not a requirement of the condictio where furtum usus is concerned. The condictio
furtiva will be available where, for example, the defendant withdraws the thing from
the possession of another, or ―takes‖ it, and uses it while intending to restore
possession after use. The condictio entitles the owner to the highest value of the thing
between the time it was stolen and litis contestatio. The rei vindicatio and the
condictio furtiva are alternative remedies. Where the thing stolen was lost or
destroyed the condictio is the owner's only remedy.‘(Footnotes omitted.)

[11]  Clifford v Farinha dealt with theft in the form of furtum usus and
held that, although it is no longer a crime, it is still a basis for a claim
based on the condictio furtiva. It was held that once a thief has withdrawn
possession of property from the owner or party entitled to the possession
thereof, and is in default of restoring the property to that person, the risk

of accidental loss rests on the thief. The appellants‘ case was therefore
that Lef, knowing that he and Peter jointly owned the items specified in
the particulars of claim, withdrew them or withheld them from the
possession of Peter‘s estate and its executors and was therefore guilty of
at least furtum usus. What he did with them thereafter is so they say
irrelevant. If he disposed of them then that is simply theft in relation to
the half interest of Peter‘s estate in such assets. If he has lost them or they
have been stolen whilst in his possession then he bore the risk of their
loss and his estate is liable to compensate Peter‘s estate for the loss
occasioned thereby. These legal principles were not challenged before us
and for present purposes I accept them.

[12] That left two main factual issues at the trial. They were whether the
alleged assets existed at the time of Peter‘s death and whether Lef
removed them in circumstances amounting at least to furtum usus. It is
therefore of critical importance to ascertain what the factual position was
at the time of Peter‘s death. In order to do this it is necessary to trace
some of the events after he died.

[13] Peter died on 9 February 2003. His son, Nick Christelis (Nick), the
first appellant, an attorney and businessman, is one of his executors. The
others are his widow, the second appellant, who one infers is elderly, and
his daughter, the third appellant, who lives in Greece. In the result Nick
has played the principal role on behalf of the appellants in the events
since that date. He is clearly the moving spirit behind the present
litigation. Immediately after his father‘s death he sought to take control of
his affairs. Under the latter‘s will a trust was constituted, of which Lef
was to be the trustee and principal beneficiary, in respect of Peter‘s
interest in a close corporation, Christelis Promotions CC. As to the

balance of the estate it was bequeathed in equal shares to Nick, his
mother and his sister. However that was subject to restrictions. Insofar as
it consisted of shares in private companies or members‘ interests in close
corporations and claims on loan account against such companies and
corporations, the executors were not entitled without Lef‘s consent to sell,
alienate, pledge or otherwise to dispose of them to any one other than a
beneficiary of Peter‘s. Nor could they demand repayment of the loan
accounts, subject to an exception in relation to an amount of R100 000.
Lef‘s will was executed at the same time and contained mirror provisions
in favour of Peter.

[14]  Christelis Promotions CC owned what was probably the most
valuable property in the property portfolio owned by the Christelis twins.
It was also the one that generated the most income. Accordingly, under
Peter‘s will, Lef would have the entire benefit from this property until his
death. In addition the provisions in regard to the other companies and
close corporations meant that until Lef‘s death it would be difficult for
Peter‘s estate to unlock any value from them. Nick was unhappy with this
and said he was concerned that it did not provide adequately for his
mother and would not enable her to purchase a flat in Cape Town and
move there where she could be close to her sister and brother.

[15] These concerns led to Nick discussing matters with Lef, who it is
common cause was in a state of great distress at the time, and with a Mr
Wasserman, who had been the auditor of the various companies for many
years. On 25 February 2003, a mere 16 days after Peter died and,
apparently before his funeral had taken place, Nick and Mr Wasserman
met with Lef at the latter‘s office. They discussed the continued conduct
of the sweet factory; the administration of the properties and the

provisions of Peter‘s will. At the end of that meeting Lef signed a
document that Nick had prepared in advance of the meeting. It recorded
that Lef declined to adiate in terms of Peter‘s will.

[16] The signature of this document precipitated a series of bitter
disputes between Lef and his nephew that lasted for the rest of Lef‘s life.
Within a couple of days Lef contacted Mr Wasserman and expressed
outrage at the document and complained that he had been taken
advantage of and tricked into signing it. He said that he had been in a
state of shock at the time having so recently lost the person to whom he
had been closest in all the world. His eyesight had degenerated and he
was virtually blind. He said he was in no state to make such an important
decision, that undermined the intentions of Peter and himself that, once
one of them died, the other would continue to control their businesses
without interference from members of their families. Whatever the merits
of these contentions it is unfortunate that Nick did not accept that Lef no
longer wished to adhere to the refusal to adiate and seek to resolve his
concerns in some other way. His rigid insistence that the refusal to adiate
was binding led to acrimonious disputes and litigation between uncle and
nephew.

[17] It is unnecessary to trawl through the history of all this. By June
2003 both sides had engaged the services of attorneys. On 9 June 2003
the attorneys representing Lef wrote to Nick‘s attorneys saying that an
action would be instituted by Lef to invalidate the refusal to adiate. The
letter proposed that Lef continue to administer all the companies while
paying a regular amount to his sister-in-law and niece for their
maintenance. The amount proffered infuriated Nick and on 10 July 2003,
Mr Brasg, an attorney acting for Peter‘s estate on Nick‘s instructions,

advised that in view of its contents the appellants had decided to
‗terminate their association with your client with immediate effect‘. They
demanded a full accounting of the business of the partnership both prior
to and subsequent to Peter‘s death. The letter added:
‗Such accounting will have to include full details of all movable assets and in
particular, cash, jewellery and bearer instruments in the nature of cash deposit
receipts, fixed deposit receipts and share certificates in negotiable form. As many of
these movable assets are kept in a safe-deposit box and also under the direct personal
control of your client, we require your client‘s undertaking that he will not access this
deposit box without a representative of our clients being present, nor will he disgorge
or conceal those assets under his personal control.‘

[18] Receipt of this letter led to the crucial events in this case. They are
dealt with in the evidence of Mr Costa Livanos, a long-standing
acquaintance of the Christelis twins. I recite his version of events, subject
to the caveat that the trial judge held him to be an unreliable witness and
on the basis that I will need in due course to address the question of his
credibility. Mr Livanos said that he was approached by Lef, in some
desperation, and told that he was having enormous problems with his
nephew, Nick, who he thought was trying to steal his money and his
share of the wealth he had built up over the years with Peter. He was
furnished with balance sheets from which he prepared a schedule of the
different companies and close corporations and their assets and liabilities.
The accuracy of this schedule was not disputed and it apparently formed
the basis upon which the property interests were divided between the two
estates.

[19]   In regard to the demand in respect of movable assets Mr Livanos
said that he took Lef to see his own attorney, a Mr Melamed. Although he
insisted that there was only one meeting on 29 August 2003, there must

have been at least two meetings with Mr Melamed, because on 7 August
2003 the latter had written to Mr Brasg, an attorney, representing Nick
and the executors in Peter‘s estate, in response to the letter referred to in
para 19 above. That meeting must have occurred some time after 21 July
2003, because until that date another attorney was representing Lef. Be
that as it may, on 29 August 2003 a meeting took place at the chambers of
Mr Slomowitz SC, who had been retained by Mr Melamed on behalf of
Lef. Others at the meeting were Mr Melamed, Mr Livanos as his
representative, Mr Limberis, an advocate, and Mr Brasg. According to Mr
Livanos, Lef was too distressed to make a contribution, so he conducted
the negotiations on his behalf. Discussion revolved around the contents of
a security box or boxes. He said that it was accepted that the contents
belonged to the universal partnership and it was agreed that they should
go and do an inventory of these items.

[20]  It does not appear that Mr Livanos‘ recollection in regard to this
agreement is accurate because it flies in the face of the probabilities. In a
letter written on 16 October 2003, Mr Brasg said they were told at the
meeting of 29 August that an inventory had been prepared in respect of
the movable assets. This is inconsistent with him agreeing at the meeting
that Mr Livanos would prepare an inventory. It is also unlikely that Mr
Brasg would have agreed to an inventory being prepared without him, or
someone else representing Nick, being present. He had written in July
demanding that Lef not access the safe deposit box without a
representative of Peter‘s estate being present and there was no reason for
him to alter that stance. It would have been contrary to his instructions to
do so. Mr Livanos was not a neutral party, but Lef‘s representative.
Finally, if there had been such an agreement, Mr Brasg would soon after
the meeting have demanded that the inventory be produced. It is more

probable that Messrs Slomowitz and Melamed decided that an inventory
should be prepared and told Mr Livanos to attend to it. In what follows I
proceed on that basis.

[21] According to Mr Livanos, on 6 September 2003 he and Captain
Fourie from the SAPS, accompanied Lef to the premises of Mercantile
Bank in Germiston in order to prepare an inventory. He explained the
presence of Captain Fourie on the basis that ‗when people see you going
to banks and things like that then maybe there was going to be a robbery
or somebody will attack us thinking that I have got money‘. That was an
absurd explanation. They were not going to withdraw money or valuables
but to undertake an inventory of the contents of a safe deposit box.
Furthermore they went to the bank by car, so the risk of a robbery was
small. He added later that it was necessary to have someone to verify and
‗in that letter they had stipulated that we must not go on our own‘.
Presumably that was a reference to Mr Brasg‘s letter of 10 July 2003, but
the letter demanded that the safe deposit box not be opened unless a
representative of both Nick and Peter‘s estate was present. Captain
Fourie‘s presence cannot be explained on that basis.

[22] At a later stage in his evidence Mr Livanos proffered another
explanation for Captain Fourie‘s presence. He said that he had told him
(inaccurately) that ‗there was a big court case going on‘. It was to protect
him (Livanos) against any allegations that he had stolen something and to
verify that everything Mr Livanos did was ‗correct‘ so that ‗nobody could
point any fingers at me‘. Why that should have been a concern was not
explained.

[23] Mr Livanos testified that Lef had with him a black pilot‘s bag,
similar to those used by lawyers to carry files. The purpose of the bag
became apparent after a bank official had admitted him and Lef and
Captain Fourie to the strong room containing the safe deposit boxes. The
bank official and Lef each had keys to two boxes and, once these had
been unlocked, they were left alone in the strong room. The first box,
identified as A8, was taken out and placed on a counter. According to
him the pilot bag was placed next to it and Lef started to take things from
the safe deposit box and put them into the pilot bag. He said that he
started to write down the items. His first note read:
‗NCD
Gold Coin
Cash
Rings Diamond.‘
He then drew a cross through this list because, so he said, Lef told him
not to write yet and to wait.

[24]  At this stage in Mr Livanos‘ recitation of the events in the strong
room, he was asked to tell the judge ‗in particular‘ what Lef removed
from the box. There followed a blatantly leading question: ‗Did he take
any container out of there?‘ It is no surprise that the answer was: ‗He took
a lot of stuff out. He took, he took, he took … there was a box of
diamonds he took out, he …‘ Counsel intervened, confirmed that Lef had
taken a box of diamonds out, and asked some questions about the size of
the box. He was told that it was about the size of half a shoe box. Having
produced an example of what was said to be a similarly sized box,
counsel again asked a leading question: ‗Now you are taking the lid off,
did he do that?‘ Mr Livanos confirmed that he had and explained that the
box contained white packets and cellophane packets and that Lef opened

about three packets and there were ‗about ten diamonds in the packets‘.
He said that Lef felt the diamonds in the palm of his hand and estimated
the size of most of them as being larger than his wife‘s diamond ring,
which was 1.6 carats. After this Lef folded up the packages, closed the
box and placed it in the pilot bag.

[25] Continuing Mr Livanos‘ narrative, he said that the next item
removed from the safe deposit box was a similarly sized box about half to
a third full of gold coins. After some prompting from counsel by way of
another leading question, he identified these as Kruger Rands. He said
Lef removed these from the box in handfuls and put them in the pilot bag.
His estimate was that he did this about 20 times removing 20 to 25 coins
on each occasion. As before, according to Mr Livanos, Lef did this while
he and Captain Fourie watched and said nothing.

[26] I interpose at this point to say that whilst not impossible it is
difficult to imagine a man suffering from the physical disabilities of Lef
doing this. He was old, nearly blind and severely arthritic. Scooping coins
out of a box in handfuls as described seems improbable bearing in mind
the size and weight of the coins in question. A Kruger Rand is slightly
larger than the R5 coin currently in circulation in South Africa and
weighs nearly 33 grams. Each handful would have weighed nearly half a
kilogram, even if one allows for some of the coins being half Kruger
Rands. The pilot‘s bag would, at the end of this, have weighed something
of the order of 12 to 15 kgs. That would be a heavy load for Lef to carry
even if, as Mr Livanos said, he was strong.

[27] After the Kruger Rands, so the tale continued, Lef removed ‗a
whole lot of diamond rings‘ and three Rolex watches from the box and

put them in the bag. After some questions about the watches he was
asked:
‗[W]hat else did he remove? Was there anything else in that box, any papers?‘
This further blatantly leading question prompted the answer that there
was a bundle of documents that ‗turned out to be NCDs‘.  Mr Livanos did
not say how he knew this other than to say that Lef spoke to Captain
Fourie and asked him for some information about what these were and
values, before putting them in the pilot‘s bag.

[28]  At this stage, so Mr Livanos said, he was permitted by Lef to
make an inventory of what remained in the safe deposit box. His evidence
on the point started with counsel referring to the item of cash. That had
not at that stage been mentioned and the judge pointed this out. Once the
exchange between the judge and counsel concluded it is no great surprise
that Mr Livanos then added that Lef had removed a number of bundles of
notes of various denominations from the safe deposit box and put them in
the bag, leaving behind only 5 or 10% of the total cash in the box.

[29] Mr Livanos then made a handwritten list of the items remaining in
safe deposit box A8. The list as written included 6 gold rings and
diamonds; 3 gold hand bracelets; 1 gold antique watch; 2 gold pendants,
2 gold chains; R18 850 in notes; 18 large and 13 small Kruger Rands; 55
gld rings and diamond inserts; gold bracelets of different sizes; 1 gold
chain; 5 gold bangles; 9 gold bracelets; 5 pendants; 1 silver bracelet and a
diamond insert. The items after the Kruger Rands appeared under a
heading ‗Family inheritance‘. While Mr Livanos was making this list he
said Lef turned his attentions, together with Captain Fourie, to the second
safe deposit box, A10. He was unable to see what they did with its
contents as he was busy writing his list of the remaining contents of A8.

When he had finished that task he then wrote a separate list of the
contents of A10. That list included 4 pearl necklaces; 3 gold rings; 3 gold
watches; 6 gold chains/Kruger Rand; 1 necklace/Kruger Rand; 3 pairs
gold earrings; 2 gold necklaces; 6 assorted brooches and 18 assorted
gold/silver/diamond bracelets.

[30] At this stage the three men left the bank and went to Lef‘s home,
with Lef carrying the pilot‘s bag. According to Mr Livanos, when they
got to the house Lef placed the bag on the table, reached in and removed
R10 000 and gave it to Captain Fourie.4 He then said to Mr Livanos that
he must not tell anyone of what they had done as he would deal with it.
Mr Livanos responded that this placed him in a terrible situation. Not
only did half of everything belong to Peter, but he had to report back to
the advocates and attorneys on the contents of the inventory. He claimed
that he was very unhappy and that Lef treated him like a little boy. He
described in some detail how Lef insisted that he would keep some of the
items at the house and some at the factory. He then left the house angry
and concerned at what had occurred.

[31] To sum up at this point, the three men had gone to the bank for the
purpose of preparing an inventory of the contents of the two safe deposit
boxes. Instead Lef had removed diamonds, Kruger Rands, diamond rings,
Rolex watches, cash and NCDs from the one box and possibly some
items from the other. The inventory prepared by Mr Livanos was severely
attenuated and after they had returned to the house Lef was adamant, over
Mr Livanos‘ protests, that he would keep what he had removed, even
though this placed Mr Livanos in an impossible situation in the light of
the mandate he understood he had received from the lawyers.

4 Mr Livanos said that he learned the amount subsequently from Captain Fourie.

[32] One might have expected Mr Livanos to seek advice from at least
Mr Melamed as to the course he should now follow. But that is not what
he did. Instead he went home and had his wife type up two inventories,
one for each box, from his written notes. He then corrected her typing in
manuscript and wrote in a heading and conclusion. The document then
read as follows:
‗INVENTORY
PROPERTY OF A N CHRISTELIS
INVENTORY in the presence of:

DATE:- 2003 09 06
1. Mr A N Christelis
2. Mr C Livanos
3. Captain L Fourie
This document serves to confirm that an inspection was conducted at the premises of
Mercantile Bank Germiston in the presence of the above mentioned parties.
The Schedule hereby reflects a true and accurate Inventory of the goods contained in
the aforementioned Box.
[The document then set out in tabular form the items reflected in Mr Livanos‘ note.]
I LOUIS FREDERICK FOURIE (Detective Captain S. A. P. Services Germiston)
declare that the above is a correct and true recording.‘
Provision was made below this last statement for Captain Fourie to sign
the inventories.

[33] A few days later according to Mr Livanos, Lef approached him
asking for the inventories. When he demurred he said that Lef offered to
give him a large diamond ring for his wife if he would only sign the
inventories, but he responded that this was an insult. Lef then wept and
asked him to sign the documents and get Captain Fourie to sign them, but
Mr Livanos refused and became, in his own words, ‗cold to him‘ and told
him to leave.

[34]  The last act in this drama according to Mr Livanos was that he
arranged for Lef‘s elder daughter, Vicky, the first respondent, and his
son, Mano, the third respondent, to come and visit him. He claimed that
he told them word for word what had happened and that he was no longer
prepared to act for their father. They begged him to change his mind, but
he was adamant. According to him Vicky then said that Nick should take
control of everything because he would make sure that everything would
be shared. Mr Livanos said that was up to them but he would have
nothing more to do with the matter. He then left. As a coda to the whole
affair a while later (in fact a little less than a year later), Lef approached
him and said that there had been a robbery at the Mercantile Bank and
again asked him for the inventory in order to enable him to make a claim
against his insurance. He promised to let Mr Livanos have 20% of the
insurance proceeds in return for his assistance, but this was turned down
as an insult. Mr Livanos then had nothing more to do with the matter until
after Lef‘s death, when he was approached by Nick seeking information
about assets in his late father‘s estate.

[35] The appellants‘ case rested entirely on the truthfulness and
reliability of Mr Livanos. The trial court held him to be an unreliable
witness. That finding is not one that is easily disturbed on appeal,
particularly where it is based in whole or part upon the impression the
witness made in giving evidence. It is easier to do so where the finding is
based on the proper inferences to be drawn from undisputed facts and the
overall probabilities. 5 The analysis involves a careful weighing of the
credibility and reliability of the witness in the light of the overall

5 Union Spinning Mills (Pty) Ltd v Paltex Dye House (Pty) Ltd and Another 2002 (4) SA 408 (SCA)
para 24.

probabilities.6 It must also be borne in mind that Lef is dead and unable to
contradict Mr Livanos. It is necessary to heed the warning sounded by
Fagan JA in Borcherds v Estate Naidoo 7 that:
‗If the facts in issue are particularly within the knowledge of only one of the parties to
a suit, that is a circumstance which the Court must take into consideration in weighing
the probative effect of the evidence adduced. Here the one party to the alleged
transaction of repayment is dead. The Court must therefore scrutinise with caution the
evidence given by, and led on behalf of, the surviving party.‘

[36] There are a number of extremely curious features in Mr Livanos‘
evidence. Chief amongst these are the following. First, there is his lack of
enquiry about the purpose of Lef bringing the pilot bag to the bank. One
would have expected him to ask because they were going to make an
inventory, not to remove items. Second is the failure by both him and
Captain Fourie to protest at Lef‘s conduct in the strong room in removing
items and packing them in the pilot‘s bag. That self-evidently was
directed at defeating the aim of taking an inventory. It seems
inconceivable that they would not have demanded an explanation. Third,
is the feebleness of his explanation that he thought Lef intended to count
them at his home and prepare the inventory there. The obvious safe place
for them to do that was in the strong room. That it might have taken some
time is neither here nor there.

[37] Fourth, is the curious sequence in which he wrote the note that was
crossed out. It started with NCD and this was followed by gold coin, cash
and ‗rings diamond‘. But this was not the order in which he described the
items being removed from the box and it didn‘t mention the box of

6 Stellenbosch Farmers' Winery Group Ltd and Another v Martell et Cie and Other 2003 (1) SA 11
(SCA) para 5.
7 Borcherds v Estate Naidoo 1955 (3) SA 78 (A) at 79A–B. See also Moyce v Estate Taylor 1948 (3)
SA 822 (A) at 827.

diamonds. Yet, according to him, that was the first thing removed from
the safe deposit box. If that were true, why was it not the first thing that
he wrote down? Even stranger is the fact that he did not make a note of it
at all. Fifth is the oddity of his differing explanations for Captain Fourie‘s
presence. Neither made any sense and the obvious explanation of his
being an impartial witness was not what he said. There is the further
oddity that he testified that, when the NCDs were removed from the
safety deposit box, Lef asked Captain Fourie what these were and their
values. That seems improbable bearing in mind that Lef was a successful
businessman, accustomed to invest in NCDs, and Captain Fourie had no
apparent expertise in this area.

[38] Sixth, it must have been apparent from the events at Lef‘s home
that he had no intention of permitting a proper inventory to be prepared.
He claimed to have challenged him over this and left angry. Yet,
notwithstanding this, he prepared typed inventories that he knew were
inaccurate and made provision for them to be signed by Captain Fourie as
an accurate reflection of the contents of the boxes. Seventh, these
inventories stated that they covered the property of A N Christelis, not ‗A
N Christelis and Late P N Christelis‘, which is how he had headed the
inventory of companies and close corporations. Eighth, he did not report
the outcome of this expedition to Mr Melamed and counsel, who had
mandated him to undertake it. Lastly, he remained silent and thereby
concealed Lef‘s conduct until after the latter‘s death, when he suddenly
became willing to reveal what had occurred. His suggestion that he did
this out of respect for Lef does not hold water. It is inconsistent with his
story that he told Lef‘s children exactly what had happened. They would
be the ones most disappointed by dishonourable conduct on the part of

their father in trying to cheat his late brother and their cousins out of what
was rightfully theirs.

[39]   Mr Livanos did not fare well under cross-examination on these
issues. He tried to picture himself as subordinate to Lef, but that was
inconsistent with his earlier portrait of Lef as an old, tired and distressed
man who had invoked his assistance in resisting the attempts by his
nephew, Nick, to deprive him of his assets. There were other problems
with his evidence. Lef‘s briefcase was produced and it did not match the
description of the pilot bag. The evidence was that after Lef‘s death a
search was undertaken and it did not reveal the existence of such a bag. In
addition, if his evidence concerning the meeting with Vicky and Mano
were correct, it is strange that Vicky did not approach Nick for assistance
at that stage, as she trusted him. The extent of Lef‘s fortune was not
known to his children and one would have expected them to be delighted
to know that their father had all these additional assets and concerned to
ensure that he did not hide or lose them.

[40] Furthermore, as the assets have not been discovered since Lef‘s
death, one is constrained to ask what happened to them, if he in fact
removed them? There is no evidence to suggest that he was in a position
to dispose of them, nor any evidence that after a lifetime of frugal living
he squandered them. Had they been stolen there is no reason to believe
that he would not have claimed against his insurers to recover any loss.
The safety deposit box at Nedbank, was opened and it contained 185
Kruger Rands, which were shared between the families. There was a
curious incident when Lef took Vicky to Mercantile Bank in July 2003
and opened a safe deposit box in her name for which he retained the key.
But that was before any suggestion that an inventory should be prepared

and in any event there is no evidence that anything was ever placed in the
box. Certainly Lef made no claim in that regard when there was a break-
in at the bank and enquiries at the bank revealed that they had no such
box. None of these features assist the appellants‘ case.

[41] There seems to be little doubt that Mr Livanos accompanied Lef to
the bank, together with Captain Fourie (who was available but not called
by either side as a witness), to undertake an inventory. He also prepared
the inventories. At some stage he clearly had a falling out with Lef. He
also had a meeting with Vicky and Mano. At that meeting he gave them
the property inventory, but not the inventory of what remained in the safe
deposit box, although he accepted that he might have had that with him.
He was unable to explain why, if he had given them a complete
explanation of what occurred in the strong room and at Lef‘s home, he
did not show them the inventories.

[42]  The strongest factor in support of Mr Livanos‘ evidence is an
affidavit signed by Lef on 27 July 2004 after a break-in at the Mercantile
Bank, in the course of which the contents of the two safety deposit boxes
were stolen. As counsel relied strongly on this affidavit it is best to set out
its terms in full. It reads:
‗At the time of forced entry the inventory in my lockers were to the best of my
knowledge as stated below
1 16 or 19 Diamond rings half carat each
2 Numerous small items of jewellery which I cannot verify.
3 Cash amount of forty to sixty thousand rand.
Bulk of which was in the two lockers were withdrawn prior to the forced
entry on the 2nd June 2004.
Due to the fact that I have had no response from Captain Fourie and Costa
Livanos in connection with the inventory I am therefore obliged to submit

to the best of my ability the contents of the safety boxes during the time of
the burglary.‘

[43]  Counsel seized on the sentence ‗Bulk of which was in the two
lockers were withdrawn‘ and the reference to the inability to obtain the
inventory from Captain Fourie and Mr Livanos. But that is to read the
word ‗which‘ as ‗what‘ and to correct the tense of ‗were‘ to read ‗was‘.
However, that statement appears immediately after the reference to an
estimate of the cash amount remaining in the safety deposit boxes and
would more naturally relate to money than the overall contents of the
boxes. Certainly if the word ‗which‘ is replaced by ‗the cash‘ it makes
perfect sense. The reference to the inventory is a two-edged sword. If Lef
had removed the bulk of the contents of the boxes then the two people he
identified knew that and, if approached by assessors acting for the bank
or its insurers, might feel obliged to explain what had happened on
6 September to the potential embarrassment of Lef. It was particularly
dangerous for him to do so when he had already approached Mr Livanos
asking for the inventories and had been turned away. He was at that stage
engaged in litigation with Nick and the inventory had been prepared in
the light of his having been advised that he was obliged to account to
Peter‘s estate for jointly owned assets.

[44] Counsel urged upon us that there was no apparent motive for Mr
Livanos to fabricate his story.  But he had undoubtedly fallen out with
Lef and his family in 2003. When Vicky and Mano told their father that
they had been to see Mr Livanos his response was: ‗What right have you
got to go and see that crook?‘ Clearly the breach between them was deep.

In those circumstances to speculate about his possible motives after Lef‘s
death to fabricate a story is dangerous.8

[45] But the evidence of Mr Livanos cannot be dealt with in isolation.
Lef is not here to give his side of the story. But one must nonetheless try
and weigh the likelihood of this story being true against what one knows
about Lef. If Mr Livanos is telling the truth then, very shortly after his
brother‘s death and knowing that his nephew was trying to find and lay
his hands on Peter‘s assets, he deliberately removed and secreted a large
number of those assets. What could have been his purpose in doing this?
It could not have been because he needed money or resources. Those he
had aplenty. Nor was it to benefit his own children and prejudice those of
his late brother. This was a man who had throughout a long life shared
everything with his brother. Their income and assets were but ‗one
pocket‘. They had made mirror wills that provided for the survivor to
control the assets until his death and then for them to be divided equally
between the families. There is no evidence of animosity between the
families. Indeed the evidence points to their constituting a close-knit clan.
The suggestion that Lef should suddenly try to cheat his brother‘s heirs is
implausible.

[46]  The dispute between Lef and Nick was not over the principle that
the twins had owned everything jointly. It was occasioned by the
signature of the refusal to adiate and Lef‘s feelings that this was a device
being used by Nick to cheat him. One can understand him trying to
protect his own interests in that situation, but it is far less easy to find a
motive for him appropriating assets that he knew his brother‘s estate had

8 In the same way as it is dangerous to speculate on why a witness in a criminal trial might be lying.
Maseti v S [2014] 1 All SA 420 (SCA) para 25.

an interest in and none was suggested. Then there is the question of what
happened to these assets. For different reasons both sides in this dispute
have searched for them. Lef‘s children searched in an endeavour to
discover assets the existence of which could only benefit them. Nick
obtained a court order against Lef before his death and the sheriff and an
attorney, whose report is part of the record, searched his house, the
factory and attended at both Nedbank and Mercantile Bank. At the
commencement of the search Lef handed over what he said was Eleni‘s
jewellery. It is not suggested that this was not her jewellery, only that it
was not all of her jewellery. Some further jewellery was discovered in a
safe. The inventory prepared by the sheriff shows that this consisted of
rings, gold chains, pendants, earrings, brooches, bracelets and watches.
All of this jewellery has been divided between the two families, whether
it came from Eleni or from other sources. During this search some old
valuation certificates for diamonds were found as well as some stale
NCDs and cheques. Some amounts in cash were found and presumably
this has also been divided.

[47]  In regard to the NCDs the evidence showed that Lef continued for
the remainder of his life to deal with them as he had before, namely, to
roll them over as they matured, sometimes withdrawing the interest. He
did this from 2003 until 2007. That is inconsistent with him having been
trying to steal these assets. It is also inconsistent with there being other
NCDs beyond those identified by Mercantile Bank.

[48] If Mr Livanos is not telling the truth then all this is explicable. The
diamonds and Kruger Rands and vast quantities of jewellery are a
figment of his imagination. Lef may have taken a few items from the
safety deposit boxes at Mercantile Bank, but they were either stored

elsewhere at Nedbank or in his safe at home. One can understand that he
might have wished to keep his mother‘s jewellery close to hand in view
of his closeness to her. It must also be remembered that his brother had
entrusted these items to his care and he may have seen it as his obligation
to continue to care for them. The documents discovered in the course of
the search appear to have been out of date – the type of old document
stored at one stage and never thrown away that is frequently found when
clearing out the home of an elderly person. All this is more plausible than
the suggestion that he set out to cheat his late brother and his closest
relatives including his own children.

[49] In those circumstances I am unable to fault the trial judge in his
assessment of Mr Livanos as a witness. He was a poor witness and his
version of events is shot through with improbabilities. Accordingly his
evidence fails to establish on the requisite balance of probabilities that on
6 September 2003 Lef removed diamonds, Kruger Rands, jewellery,
Rolex watches and NCDs from two safe deposit boxes at Mercantile
Bank.

[50] It remains necessary to deal with three further aspects relating to
the items left in the safe deposit box that were stolen when Mercantile
Bank was broken into; the claim in respect of NCDs and that in respect of
Eleni‘s jewellery, which may in some respects not depend on Mr
Livanos‘ evidence. In the latter regard the contention was that Eleni, the
twins‘ mother had been a flamboyant character who loved to wear a great
deal of valuable jewellery provided to her by Peter and Lef, to whom she
was particularly close. However, photographs of Eleni taken on various
occasions, including formal dinners where one would expect her to wear
her best jewellery, do not support this suggestion. They show a modestly

dressed lady of mature years at various functions and in a domestic
situation. She is usually wearing a watch and two or three bracelets and
on occasions a string of pearls or necklace or a brooch. On this evidence
there is no basis for thinking that any significant items of jewellery
owned by the late Eleni Christelis was in Lef‘s possession and has not
been produced.

[51] The claim was not based on physical evidence but on a settlement
agreement concluded between Nick and Lef to resolve all the litigation
between them. That agreement had a clause in which both parties
acknowledged that Eleni‘s jewellery belonged to Peter‘s estate and Lef in
equal shares and added in manuscript:
‗It is recorded that Eleni‘s jewellery is that as referred to in clauses 18 to 20 inclusive
of the founding affidavit in case no 2005/5536.‘
However, reference to these paragraphs of that affidavit, which was
deposed to by Nick, shows that they contain no description of the
jewellery in question. The nearest it comes to a description is a sentence
that reads:
‗To the best of our recollection, Eleni‘s jewellery consisted of at least twenty diamond
rings and at least six gold and diamond brooches with a reputed value (at that time) of
between R3 and R5 million.‘
That unclear recollection must be read in the light of the further
paragraph saying that only Lef had details of what constituted the
jewellery. When he produced it, after Nick had obtained a court order and
Lef‘s house was searched by the sheriff and an attorney, it proved far less
fabulous than that description suggested. What was sued for was the
balance, which was entirely indefinite and nothing in the evidence
identified it with any greater clarity. On that ground alone the claim had
to fail.

[52]    As regards NCDs Mr Livanos made a note that these existed
when he was at the bank. However, there is no evidence that they were
current NCDs. When Lef‘s house was searched a number of stale NCDs
were discovered. They were part of a series that had been rolled over
every three months. When the matter came to trial a sub-poena was
served on Mercantile Bank and this resulted in the production of what
was virtually the full series of NCDs. As a schedule prepared by the
respondents showed, three series of NCDs had run from 2001 to 2007.
When they matured in January 2007 they were reinvested in two NCDs
and in April 2007 one of those was given to Nick on behalf of Peter‘s
estate and the other was held, reinvested and the proceeds divided among
Lef‘s children. It was suggested in argument that the schedule revealed an
obligation for Lef‘s estate to account to Peter‘s estate for an amount of
some R600 000 but that is a matter of accounting in the two estates. It is
not the claim that was pursued in the action and can be resolved by way
of a claim against the estate of Lef. The pleaded claim was one in respect
of NCDs that fell within the actio furitva.  However, that could only
relate to NCDs removed by Lef from the strong room of the bank. Not
only does that claim depend on the evidence of Mr Livanos but his
evidence, even if accepted, did not suffice to show the existence of NCDs
that were current at the time and have not subsequently been accounted
for.

[53]    Lastly there are the items stolen from the safety deposit boxes at
Mercantile Bank and reflected in the two inventories prepared by Mr
Livanos. In regard to them Lef had during Peter‘s lifetime been entrusted
with the task of storing and securing them. He did so by placing them in
the bank‘s care in safety deposit boxes. They were not appropriated by
him, but were in the care and custody of the bank when they were stolen.

In those circumstances the requirements for the actio furtiva are not
satisfied in respect of these items.

[54] For those reasons the appeal must be dismissed. Ordinarily that
would carry with it an order that the appellants pay the costs of the appeal
including the costs of two counsel. However, that order must be qualified
in two respects. First the record consisted of 14 volumes and 2659 pages.
A large part of this was due to the respondents‘ attorneys insisting on the
inclusion of documents that were unnecessary for the conduct of the
appeal. Their costs in regard to compliance with rule 8(9) of the Rules of
this Court and in regard to the perusal of the unnecessary portion of the
record, which I estimate at 1000 pages out of 2500 or 40% of the record,
should be disallowed.

[55] The fault in this regard extended from the attorneys to the
advocates in relation to the preparation of the heads of argument and in
complying with the requirements of the practice directive. We were told
by both sets of counsel that we needed to read the entire record. That was
manifestly wrong because most of the record was not referred to in the
heads of argument and there were portions that related to claims
abandoned in the course of the trial and the issue of quantum that had
been separated. In addition we were told that it was impossible to prepare
a core bundle. Again that was incorrect. This was pointed out to the
parties in a letter from the registrar of this court in which the following
was said:
‗[A] superficial examination of the record reveals [that] neither party has made any
reference to Volumes 11 and 12 and there are but a handful of references to Volumes
2, 8, 9 and 10. In Volume 14 it appears only to be necessary to consider the judgment
of the trial court. A large part of the pleadings and the interlocutory applications in
Volume 1 are also irrelevant.

In addition both sets of counsel say that it is not possible to extract a core bundle from
the documents forming part of the record, albeit that they both only refer to a handful
of documents. This is likewise incorrect and constitutes non-compliance with the
requirements of the rule.‘
There followed a directive to the parties to file a proper practice note and
a core bundle.

[56]  This directive was ignored and instead two revised records were
delivered, the one of some 1100 pages and the other of some 1450 pages.
There was also a flurry of correspondence of an acrimonious nature about
the reasons for the parties not being able to agree on what was relevant.
The parties had been warned that there would be consequences flowing
from their failure to comply with the rules of this court. In the result there
was a tender in the course of argument, made jointly by counsel on behalf
of all the legal practitioners involved that they would not raise fees or
charge their clients any costs in relation to the preparation and lodging of
revised records or the revised heads of argument. An order will be made
to this effect.

[57] The following order is made:

1 The appeal is dismissed with costs, such costs to include those
consequent upon the employment of two counsel, but subject to
the further orders set out below.
2 The respondents shall not be entitled to recover their costs of
complying with rule 8(9) of the Rules of this Court and 40% of
the costs of perusal of the record.
3 None of the legal practitioners, whether representing the appellants
or the respondents, shall be entitled to recover from their clients

any costs in relation to the preparation and lodging of revised
records or the revised heads of argument.

M J D WALLIS
JUDGE OF APPEAL

Legodi AJA (dissenting)

[58] I have had the opportunity to read the judgment of Wallis JA.
Unfortunately for the reasons that will follow, I am unable to agree
therewith.  I do not find it necessary to repeat the facts of the case except
insofar as it might be necessary.  I prefer to refer to the twin brothers as
Peter and Alfred.

[59] The separation of issues referred to in the majority judgment was
intended to deal first with co-ownership, existence or possession and
disposal or theft by Alfred of the assets set out in para 8 of the particulars
of claim.  Quantum, that is, the quantities and values of such assets, was
to be dealt with at a later stage, except for the quantities of the assets set
in sub-para 8(f) of the particulars of claim.

[60] The description of the assets in para 8 of the particulars of claim is
set out in para 5 of the main judgment and is based on the evidence of
Livanos and settlement agreement relating to Eleni‘s jewellery.  The
declaratory order sought is in respect of the assets identified and
described in para 8 of the particulars of claim.  Therefore co-ownership
and the existence of these assets as at the death of Peter on the 9 February

2003, as well as the possession and disposal thereof by Alfred are capable
of being separated from the quantum issue, that is, from the issue of what
the quantities and values of the assets listed in para 8 of the particulars of
claim were. Once the issue relating to co-ownership, possession and
disposal of the assets in question is disposed of in favour of the
appellants, there will be no need to go into any issue other than that
relating to the quantities and values of such assets.  I am therefore unable
to agree that the trial court proceeded on an unrealistic basis.

[61] At the start of the trial, the parties elected not to lead evidence on
the quantities and values of the assets except for quantities of assets set
out in sub-para 8(f) of the particulars of claim.  It would therefore be
premature to come to the conclusion that the appellants would not be able
to establish the quantities and values of the assets set out in para 8 of the
particulars of claim during the second stage of the trial.

[62] The court below having heard evidence dismissed the appellants‘
action on the limited issues placed before it. It rejected Livanos‘ evidence
and stated that it lacked credibility and corroboration.  The appellants
appeal against these findings.

[63] The appellants‘ cause of action is based on the principle of actio ad
exhibendum and actio furtiva. The appellants are relying on actio ad
exhibendum as an alternative to actio furtiva principle. The action ad
exhibendum is a delictual action which is instituted as an alternative to rei
vindicatio. It enables a plaintiff to claim damages from an erstwhile
possessor of the plaintiff‘s property.9

9 Frankel Pollak Vinderine Inc v Stanton NO 2000 (1) SA 425 (W).

[64] In an ad exhibendum action, the plaintiff must allege and prove
that:
(a)
the plaintiff is or was the owner of the property
concernedwhen such property was alienated by the
defendant;10

(b)
the defendant had been in possession of the property;11

(c)
the defendant‘s loss of possession was mala fide.  This will
be the case if, at the time of the loss of possession or
destruction, the defendant had knowledge of the plaintiff‘s
ownership or claim to ownership of the property. 12  A
defendant who disposes of a plaintiff‘s property after the
institution of an action in which the plaintiff relies on alleged
ownership is mala fide;13
(d)
the defendant intentionally disposed of the property or
caused its destruction intentionally or negligently.14

[65] The appellants sufficiently pleaded actio ad exhibendum but also
pleaded theft to bring in actio furtiva as a further cause of action. In
paragraph 13.1.1 read with paragraph 13.1 of their prayers they asked for
an order declaring that they have a valid claim against the estate of the
late Alfred in the amount of R44 737 500 together with interest thereon at
the prescribed rate. The relief sought in the court a quo is not for the
return of the assets, but rather the value thereof. The very basis of liability

10 RMS Tranport v Psicon Holdings (Pty) Ltd 1996 (2) SA 176 (T) at181.
11 Frankel Pollak Vinderine Inc. v Stanton NO, supra.
12 Vulcan Rubber Works (Pty) Ltd v south African Railways & Harbours 1958 (3) 285 (A).
13 Philip Robison Motors (Pty) Ltd v NM Dada (Pty) Ltd 1975 (2) SA 420 (A).
14 Ibid.

in the actio ad exhibendum is bad faith or knowledge of tainted title.15 It
runs counter to common sense and the actio ad exhibendum principle to
hold that it is a sufficient cause of action for the plaintiff to allege that he
or she is the owner of an article and that the defendant was at one time in
possession of it, although he is no longer in possession of it because he
has disposed of it or it has been destroyed.16 It would seem to follow that
bad faith on the part of the defendant in such cases is a necessary
ingredient of the owner‘s cause of action for recovery of the value of the
property and must be alleged and proved by him.17 The general principle
to be applied when an owner sues a defendant in an actio ad exhibendum
for the payment of the value of the owner‘s property which was formerly
in the defendant‘s possession, but which he is unable to restore because
of his having ceased to possess the property, is that the onus is on the
plaintiff to allege and prove that, at least at the time of the defendant‘s
loss of possession, he had knowledge of the plaintiff‘s ownership or of
his claim to ownership of the property.18

[66] In the case of Alderson cited above, Botha J as he then was,
extensively referred to the work of Voet using Gane‘s translation.
Fraudulent possession and loss thereof was considered. In section 6.1.32

15 See Morobane v Bateman 1918 AD 460 at 466.
16 See Alderson & Flitton (Tzaneen) (Pty) Ltd v E G Duffeys Spares (Pty) Ltd 1975 (3) SA 41 (T).
17 Ibid at 46 C-D.
18 Ibid at 48 G-H.

Voet stated that a defendant who has ceased to possess by fraud is liable
to make good the value of the thing to the owner. 19 Similarly, Voet
indicated in section 6.1.33 of his work that ‗the value of the property
must be restored by a possessor in bad faith who has ceased to possess
through negligence before joinder of issue, but that a possessor in good
faith is only liable in the event of a negligent loss of possession after
joinder of issue since, by such joinder, he has been placed in a position of
bad faith.‘  In 6.1.34 he goes on: ‗[H]e who indeed possesses in bad faith,
but is not a robber, ought only to make good the loss of the thing in the
case where it would not have perished in the same way in the hands of the
plaintiff, as when perchance he shows that he would have sold it off’.20
(Emphasis added.) It was argued on behalf of the plaintiff in that case that
by virtue of the reference therein, to litis contestatio, the actio ad
exhibendum was intended to apply only to cases where there had been a
formal demand, or a summons for delivery of possession before the
property was destroyed.

[67] Coming back to the rejection of Livanos‘ evidence by the trial
court, it found that: he waited for a period in excess of four years before
he related the incident of 6 September 2003 to the first plaintiff, that he
failed to offer an explanation for the delay and that the effect of his

19 Ibid at 50 H.
20 Ibid at 51 B-C.

silence was to deny the late Alfred an opportunity to defend himself in
respect of his alleged conduct at Mercantile Bank. It also found that
Livanos contradicted himself with regard to the Rolex watches taken by
the late Alfred and that he did not explain how it was possible to observe
the conduct of the late Alfred at the bank. The trial court concluded that
Livanos was not a credible witness and that it would be dangerous to rely
on his testimony without any corroboration.

[68] Perhaps some comment is appropriate regarding the required
approach to evidence. The correct approach to evaluating evidence is to
weigh up all relevant facts which point towards probabilities and
improbabilities on both sides and, having done so, determine on whose
side the balance of probabilities weigh heavily. This requires
consideration of inherent strengths and weaknesses in the evidence of
each witness. The trial court, in rejecting Livanos's evidence, found that
his evidence was beset with some unexplained difficulties.

[69] Generally, the trial court has advantages which the court of appeal
does not have in observing and hearing the witnesses and in being steeped
in the atmosphere of the trial. Not only does it have the opportunity of
observing their demeanour, but also their appearance and their

personalities. Consequently the appeal court is very reluctant to upset
factual findings of the trial court.21

[70] It should be borne in mind that it is the duty of the court of appeal
to overrule a conclusion of a court of first instance on a question of fact
when, notwithstanding the disadvantages from which it suffers as
compared with the court of first instance, it is convinced that the
conclusion to which the latter court has come is wrong.22 The truthfulness
or untruthfulness of a witness can rarely be determined by demeanour
alone, without regard to other factors including, especially, the
probabilities. A finding based on demeanour involves interpreting the
behaviour or conduct of the witness while testifying. A further and
closely related danger is the implicit assumption, in referring to the trier
of facts findings on demeanour, that all triers of fact have the ability to
interpret correctly the behaviour of a witness, notwithstanding that the
witness may be of a different culture, class, race or gender and someone
whose life experience differs fundamentally from that of trier of fact.23

21  R v Dhlumayo and Another 1948 (2) SA 677 (A) at 705-706.
22  Mine Workers’ Union v Brodrick 1948 (4) SA 959 (A) at 970.
23 See President of the Republic of South Africa and Others v South African Rugby Football Union &
others 2000 (1) SA 1 (CC) at 43; see also Allie v Foodworld Stores Distribution (Pty) Ltd and Others
2004 (2) SA 433 (SCA).

[71] It is apposite at this stage to consider Livanos‘ evidence in order to
determine whether it was corroborated or not. I propose to commence
with the conduct of the late Alfred at the bank. In this regard the evidence
of Livanos does not stand alone.

[72] Subsequent to the burglary at Mercantile Bank on 2 June 2004,
Alfred was requested by the Bank to provide the contents of the safety
deposit boxes A8 and A10 as at 2 June 2004. He deposed to an affidavit
which is quoted in para 42 of the main judgment and I do not find it
necessary to repeat the quotation. I comment later in para 90 on what is
stated in para 42 of the main judgment. It suffices for now to state that an
affidavit deposed to by Alfred corroborates Livanos‘ evidence in two
respects. First, the existence of an inventory or expectation of an
inventory from Livanos. Second, the removal of the bulk of the assets
from the two safety deposit boxes. This is a very material corroboration.
Alfred, in the affidavit, can only be referring to the events of 6 September
2003. The conduct of the late Alfred on that day was further confirmed by
the first respondent. Under cross-examination she indicated that Captain
Fourie had confirmed to her that ‗stuff‘ was removed from the safety
deposit boxes on 6 September 2003.

[74] In so far as Livanos‘ ability to observe the late Alfred's conduct at
the bank is concerned, in my view, this should be seen in the context of
the corroboration already outlined in the preceding paragraphs. But even
more importantly the evidence suggests that when the items were
removed from the safety deposit box A8 and put in a bag, Livanos was
there. He was able to observe everything that happened. His evidence
with regards to what the late Alfred did is not contradicted. His
contemporaneous written notes also corroborate his evidence. He was
stopped when he started writing down the list of the assets in the safety
deposit box A8. At that stage, he had already written as follows:
‗NCD
gold coins
cash
rings diamond.‘
He then put a line across the inscription and waited until the late Alfred
had finished removing items from the safety deposit box A8. The next
inscription on the same page is a list of items that Livanos said remained
in the safety deposit box A8. In this regard he stated during his oral
evidence that he had already started writing ‗NCD, gold coins, cash,
rings, diamond‘ when he was stopped. By gold coins he was referring to
the Kruger Rands, some of which were removed from the safety deposit
box A8 and were contained in a half size shoe box.

[75] Livanos‘ testimony was further corroborated by the discovery of
the Kruger Rands and jewellery at the home of the late Alfred. The
negotiable certificates of deposit were also cashed after the events of 6
September 2003 and thus confirm the existence and removal thereof from
the safety deposit box A8.  Therefore, the contention by counsel for the
respondents in surpport of the trial court‘s ruling that there was no
corroboration of Livanos‘ evidence cannot be sustained. The trial court
erred in its conclusion.

[76] It is also not correct that Livanos offered no explanation for
waiting until after the death of the late Alfred before he could tell the first
appellant about the events of 6 September 2003. Livanos was approached
by the first appellant for information. Livanos explained the reasons for
the delay as follows:
‗Immediately after we left his house I started to think about this and the penny started
to drop what was going on here. Because I know that that was not my mandate and
my attorney and Mr Slomowitz were waiting, Mr Limberis, they were all waiting for
me, they trusted me to go and give an inventory and how do I do it? How do I go and,
there was no ways I was going to be part and parcel of this whole thing, and that is
why when I finally withdrew from the matter it was the easiest way out for me just to
rather say I am not acting in this matter, cut me out, I am not involved, he must now
discuss work with Mr Christelis, I was not prepared, I never gave the inventory to Mr

Melamed, I never said anything, I just withdrew because it was not my because in the
first place it was out of confidence that Mr Christelis, whatever he did rightly or
wrongly, I did, and I was not going to disclose that to anybody else. The only person I
told about it, I never gave anybody these documents, is that I, finally when I met with
the two children I told them everything what had happened and that is when I said to
them, I am telling you please, I am saying please you better do something, you better,
you better go in and try and do something about this because this, and I told them
what had happened with their father.‘

[77] I find nothing wrong with this explanation. But even more
importantly, further during his evidence when he was asked why he did
not report the incident of 6 September 2003 whilst Alfred was still alive
he stated:
‗… I did not feel at that stage I had to keep, because I mean, I had a, obviously I could
not do it to anybody else while Lefty was alive because he trusted me and that, but
when Lefty had passed away then I (indistinct) told him what happened. All the
documents I had I gave to Nicky.‘
The explanation that he did not want to expose the late Alfred whilst he
was still alive brings to an end the speculation why Livanos decided to
hand over the inventory to the first appellant after the death of Alfred.
What would he gain from falsely implicating the late Alfred? I cannot
think of any. Therefore the imputation that he wanted to hit back at the
late Alfred is not based on any facts. If indeed he wanted to, he would

surely have disclosed these events to the first appellant whilst Alfred was
still alive.

[78] The court below also took the view that the delay in disclosing the
events of 6 September 2003 was suspicious. I do not think that the
criticism is justified. A week after the events of 6 September 2003,
Livanos told the children of the late Alfred about the existence of the
jewellery in the safety deposit boxes, as well as the existence of an
inventory regarding the jewellery, but refused to show them. He told
them about the removal of the assets from the safety deposit box.
Although the latter fact is denied by the respondents, it must be seen in
context. The respondents are not neutral to the dispute. Finding against
the appellants will benefit the respondents because there will be no claim
against their father‘s estate. Livanos told the respondents of the events of
6 September 2003 because they are Alfred‘s children. The chances of
exposing Alfred through his children were minimal if not zero. Livanos
confided in them on this basis. It makes sense why Alfred was angry
when told that the children had spoken to Livanos. He was a very
secretive person who shared nothing with his family about his business
activities. In my view, no adverse inference should have been drawn
against Livanos as a witness in this regard.

[79] The evidence of Livanos is very material to the existence of the
assets listed in para 8 of the plaintiffs' particulars of claim. The list of
jewellery in para8(f) is based on Livanos‘ evidence as to the assets which
remained in the safety deposit boxes A8 and A10 on 6 September 2003.
The assets listed in sub-paras 8(a) to (d) are the assets Livanos says were
removed from safety deposit box A8 on 6 September 2003. Eleni's
jewellery in sub-para 8(e) of the particulars of claim refers to the assets
that the late Alfred confirmed to have had in his possession and
undertook to hand over for sharing with the appellants.

[80] The critical question before us is the co-ownership and existence or
possession of the late Alfred's assets listed in para 8 of the particulars of
claim as at 9 February 2003. The trial court correctly found that a
partnership existed between the twins. The evidence in my view is also
overwhelming that the twins during their lifetime co-owned diamonds,
Kruger Rands and negotiable certificates of deposit (NCDs), all or part of
which were sometimes referred to as ‗hard assets‘. This is also supported
by the evidence of Mr Van Vuuren and Mr Tzouras. It is clear from the
undisputed evidence of Mr Tzouras that he introduced the twins to the
trade of diamonds in 1976. He sold ‗top quality diamonds‘ to the twins.
Mr van Vuuren on the other hand was employed by the twins for many
years until 1984. He also confirmed that the twins bought Kruger Rands.

The cash that was accumulated from the sweet and confectionary factory
was kept either in the safe or strong room. The diamonds and Kruger
Rands were purchased out of the cash kept in the strong room.

[81] The next question that has to be answered is: could the late Alfred
have acquired 'the hard assets' which were in the two safety deposit boxes
on 6 September 2003 after the death of his twin brother? The probabilities
negate this. The first appellant was not happy with the will. On 23
February 2003 the late Alfred signed the refusal to adiate. The following
morning he reneged from it. He branded the first plaintiff a crook who
was trying to rob him of his share in the partnership assets. From there
the relationship was terribly strained. There is no evidence that he
purchased any of 'the hard assets' between 9 February 2003 and 6
September 2003. Therefore the assets that are listed in para 8 of the
particulars of claim should have been in existence and co-owned as at 9
February 2003. This should include the negotiable certificates of deposit
which Livanos had seen on 6 September 2003. Mr van Vuuren also
confirmed the existence of the negotiable certificates of deposit. He
became aware of their existence when he was still working for the twins.
From time to time, on maturity dates, renewals were activated. The late
Alfred had cashed some of the instruments after the death of the late
Peter. He is the only one who had keys to the safety deposit boxes.

Therefore the contention that there was no evidence that he possessed the
assets listed in para 8 of the particulars of claim after the 9 February 2003
ought to be rejected.

[82] I am therefore satisfied that the assets referred to in sub-paras 8(a),
(b) and (c) of the particulars of claim were co-owned and the late Alfred
was in possession of or in control of such assets as at 9 February 2003.
The quantities and values of the assets listed in sub-paras 8(a), (b) and (c)
of para 8, is not an issue before us and ought to be the subject of further
hearing in the court a quo.

[83] The assets in sub-para 8(d) are three Rolex watches. During
argument it was conceded that the appellants have not proved that they
were co-owned. The concession should dispose of the issue relating to the
Rolex watches. The contradictions, if any, regarding the Rolex watches,
is in my view, not so material as to reject the whole of Livanos‘ evidence
which is materialy corroborated by other independent evidence.

[84] As regards Eleni's jewellery listed in sub-para 8(e) of the
particulars of claim, on 14 April 2005, the late Alfred and the first
appellant entered into a settlement agreement which was made an order
of the court. Of relevance, the parties acknowledged and recorded that

Eleni‘s jewellery belonged to the estate of the late Peter N Christelis and
Alfred Christelis in equal share. It was further recorded that the parties
shall take all such steps and do all things necessary in order to procure the
equitable separation and division of the jewellery as to 50% to the estate
of the late Peter and 50% to the late Alfred. The existence of these assets
as at 9 February 2003 was never an issue. Eleni‘s jewellery as agreed
consisted of 20 diamond rings and at least six gold and diamond brooches
with a reputed value at the time of between three and five million rands.
These were acquired and co-owned long before the death of Peter. After
the death of Peter, the late Alfred before his death confirmed on a number
of occasions the existence of Eleni‘s jewellery to be in his possession. He,
however, failed to hand them over for distribution or disclose their
whereabouts. Despite court orders obtained against him, the late Alfred
still failed to produce Eleni‘s jewellery for distribution. It was only after
the execution of the court order that very few items of jewellery forming
part of Eleni‘s jewellery were found. The suggestion made by the
respondents‘ counsel that there was no sufficient evidence that such
assets were co-owned cannot be correct. I therefore see no basis to
decline to make an order as proposed regarding Eleni‘s jewellery.

[85] The quantity of the assets listed in sub-para 8(f) is an issue before
us. The inventory of what was kept in the safety boxes A8 and A10 also

contained the quantities of items so listed. Livanos prepared the list
contemporaneously. His evidence with regards to the quantities was not
materially challenged, neither was there any evidence to refute the list
and the quantity. I therefore have no difficulty in finding that the
quantities of the assets are as set out in the inventory. The value of the
assets is not an issue before us.

[86] Regarding the disposal of the assets with the knowledge of the
appellants‘ claims, the conduct of the late Alfred falls squarely within the
principles of the actio ad exhibendum. On receipt of a letter of demand
dated 10 July 2003, he caused his daughter under very strange
circumstances to rent in her name a safety deposit at Mercantile Bank. He
introduced her to the bank officials as the person who would assist him.
He however did not give the key to his daughter and thus placed himself
in control of the safety deposit box. On 6 September 2003 he removed the
diamonds and Kruger Rands. He also stopped Livanos from making a full
list of items in the safety deposit box A8. He paid Captain Fourie
R10 000, apparently for his silence. He instructed Livanos and Fourie not
to tell anyone about what they had witnessed. Two weeks thereafter, he
offered Livanos a diamond, apparently in exchange for the incomplete
inventory. Efforts to retrieve the jewellery, including Eleni's jewellery,
was a challenge. Despite court orders he failed to account for these assets.

When the sheriff executed, very few items were found. For example,
Livanos spoke about more than 500 Kruger Rands and only 185 were
recovered. Mr van Vuuren, who worked for the twins for many years,
spoke about 1 000 Kruger Rands. Livanos spoke about diamonds in a box
half the size of a shoe box, which was full to the brim, but far less was
recovered.

[87] There can be no doubt that he removed the diamonds, other
jewellery and Kruger Rands from the safety deposit boxes so that they
cannot be shared as part of the partnership‘s assets. He was fully aware of
the appellants‘ claims thereto.

[88]  He cashed the negotiable certificates of deposit. He was fully aware
of the plaintiff's claims thereto yet he did not offer to share the proceeds
thereof with the appellants. He should therefore be found to have
disposed of the negotiable certificates of deposit, the balance of the
Kruger Rands, Elini‘s jewellery and the diamonds, with the knowledge of
the claims thereto by the appellants.

[89] As regards the assets listed in para 8(f) of the particulars of  claim,
they were left in the two safety deposit boxes on 6 September 2003. On 2
June 2003 a burglary occurred at the bank. The items were stolen. Theft

and or disposal thereof cannot be attributed to the late Alfred nor can it be
said he took the risk by keeping the said assets in the safety deposit
boxes. Therefore the declarator sought based on theft or disposal with the
knowledge of the appellants‘ claims with regards to assets listed in sub-
para 8(f) of the particulars of claim cannot succeed. Alfred was a very
unreliable person. His daughter said so. The fact that he removed the
assets from the safety box or boxes is proof that he was capable of
disposing the assets in question like he did with the negotiable certificates
of deposit which he cashed. I find it unnecessary to deal with the
appellants‘ cause of action based on the actio furtiva principle. It suffices
to mention that the conduct of Alfred with regards to the other assets
removed from the safety deposit boxes satisfies the requirements for a
claim based on the actio furtiva principle.

[90] I cannot agree that the statement quoted in para 42 of the majority
judgment refers only to the ‗cash amount‘ being item 3 in the statement.
At the end of item 3, there is a full stop.  The ‗bulk of which was in the
two lockers were withdrawn prior to the forced entry on the 2nd June
2004‘ is a sentence on its own starting on a separate paragraph below
item 3.  The  subject concord ‗was‘ in the statement should be understood
to be referring to the ‗bulk‘ of assets in the two lockers which were

withdrawn or removed prior to the forced entry.  There is no evidence
that there was cash in the other locker or the safety deposit box A10.
Livanos spoke of cash in the safety deposit box A8, some of which was
removed.  Therefore, ‗… were withdrawn…‘ in the statement can only be
referring to other assets of kinds of assets listed in items 1, 2 and 3 of the
statement.  The statement should be read and understood in the light of
the other evidence. For example, Fourie confirmed to the first respondent
that ‗stuff‘ was removed from the safety deposit boxes on the 6
September 2003. This corroborative evidence regarding the removal of
assets from the safety deposit boxes on 6 September 2003 cannot be
ignored.

[91] Livanos testified for the appellants. They came to court on the
basis that there was a meeting on 9 August 2003.  Therefore the
discussion regarding the meeting of 9 August 2003 referred to in para 20
of the main judgment should be accepted as alluded to by Livanos. In all
probability the parties trusted Livanos. In fact Livanos says so, as stated
in the quotation in para 76. It was therefore not necessary for the
appellants to insist on another person to accompany Livanos and Alfred
to the Bank. The presence of Fourie at the Bank on 6 September 2003
was confirmed by Fourie himself to the first respondent.  Why he was
there, one can only rely on the evidence of Livanos.

[92] There was no evidence that the physical disability of Alfred was
such that he could not have taken scoops of Kruger Rands and carried the
pilot bag as explained by Livanos. The exact or approximate weight of
the bag, in my view, is not based on any reliable evidence and will
amount to drawing conclusions without evidence to find Livanos
unreliable in this regard.

[93] Livanos did not intervene or question Alfred at the Bank. He did
not, because, whilst puzzled, he also thought the full inventory would be
done at home. When that did not happen, he decided to distance himself
from Alfred‘s conduct. Alfred was a co-owner of the assets. To suggest
that Livanos and Fourie should have stopped him, would be to place an
enormous and difficult task on them. Alfred was not an easy person to
deal with. His daughter said so. Secondly, failure to question Alfred about
the need to carry the pilot bag is not relevant or material to justify the
rejection of Livanos‘s evidence. What is however relevant is that items
were removed from the safety deposit box and put inside the pilot bag.
There is no evidence to refute this assertion. The fact that the pilot bag
could not be found should infact be seen as corroboration of the disposal
or concealment of the assets in question.

[94] Concerning his declaration that the list of assets or inventory
‗reflects a true and accurate inventory of the goods contained in the …
box‘, he explained that that was with reference to what actually remained
in the safety deposit boxes after Alfred had removed some of the assets.
He refused to hand over the inventory to Alfred, because he knew that it
was not complete. Livanos is not a legally trained person. To draw
conclusions against evidence that is not reliably contradicted will amount
to a wrong approach to evaluating evidence.  I do not think that any
adverse inference  drawn against Livanos on the basis of his declaration is
justified.

[ 95] As regards Livanos‘failure to report to the legal representatives, it
was Alfred who was obliged to account for the assets in the safety deposit
boxes and not Livanos.  So, if Alfred was unable to get an inventory from
Livanos or Fourie, it was incumbent on him to report to the lawyers and
not Livanos. Remember, Livanos got himself involved because he wanted
to help Alfred.  If Alfred by his conduct made it impossible or diffcult for
Livanos to assist, he was entitled to distance himself as he did.  Alfred in
any event had access to the safety deposit boxes and he could have
compiled another inventory if he wanted to.

[96] In the result, on a conspectus of evidence, the court a quo erred in
dismissing the appellants‘ claim. It should have considered the
corroborating evidence and concluded that the appellants had proved
some of their claims. The appellants in my view have achieved
substantial success on appeal. Accordingly, costs should follow the result.

[97] I turn now to consider the issue relating to the reserved costs of 10
May 2006. This relates to an application to separate the issues,
postponement of the trial and an application to obtain the evidence of
Tzouras on commission. Subsequent to the order to obtain evidence on
commission, the evidence of Mr Tzouras was taken before Commissioner
George Mavrikis in Athens, Greece on 17 May 2010. Both parties
attended and participated in the proceedings.

[98] The evidence of Tzouras, in my view, was indeed relevant as it
dealt with the possible existence of the diamonds. Secondly, it sought to
dispel the suggestion that what Livanos said were diamonds could have
been fake diamonds contained in some lucky packets. The appellants are
therefore entitled to the reserved costs of the application in terms of rule
38(3) of the Uniform Rules of Court and the costs occasioned by the
postponement of the trial in the court a quo.

[99] I have considered order 2 and 3 of the majority judgment. I agree
with the displeasure expressed by Wallis JA and the order made. Rule 8 is
not meant only for the convenience of the Court, but most importantly, to
ensure the proper running of the proceedings and expeditious finalisation
of appeals especially where the record is voluminous like in this case. A
properly prepared bundle saves time. One does not have to read
everything. The content of the core bundle is to be focused, dealing
mostly with evidence and documents which are relevant to the issues
only.

[100] I would have made an order upholding the appeal.

_______________________
M F LEGODI
ACTING JUDGE OF APPEAL

Appearances

For appellant:
C M Eloff SC (with him S Stein)
Instructed by:
Fluxmans Inc, Johannesburg;
Lovius Block, Bloemfontein.

For respondent:
P L Carstensen (with him G Davids and A
Schluep)
Instructed by:
Geo Isserow & T L Friedman, Johannesburg;
McIntyre & Van der Post, Bloemfontein.
Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa

MEDIA SUMMARY– JUDGMENT DELIVERED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
APPEAL

From:   The Registrar, Supreme Court of Appeal

Date:  16 April 2014

Status:  Immediate

Please note that the media summary is intended for the benefit of the media and does
not form part of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal.

Christelis NO v Meyer NO
This case involved the estates of twin brothers, Peter and Alfred
Christelis. During their lives they had engaged in business together and
become wealthy men. Peter died in February 2003. Shortly thereafter a
dispute arose between Alfred and his nephew, Peter’s son, regarding the
administration of Peter’s estate. In the course of the dispute it was alleged
that Alfred was in possession of assets of the estate in the form of
diamonds, gold coins, jewellery and negotiable certificates of deposit.
After his death in 2007 a witness came forward who said that he had been
present when Alfred removed assets of this description from a safety
deposit box with a bank. The action was institituted on behalf of Peter’s
estate to recover the value of the assets so removed.
The trial court, after a lengthy trial, held that the witness who
claimed to have been present when Alfred removed assets from the safety
deposit box was not a reliable witness. The majority of the SCA,
consisting of four judges, agreed with the trial judge’s assessment of this
witness. In the result the appeal was dismissed.