In granting a provisional sequestration order against the estate of former bookkeeper Louise Bowker, who admitted earlier this year to owing more than a million rands to Grahamstown vet Philip Gilfillan – money a judge said had been stolen – another judge has now called into question substantial loan repayments she made to family members after selling her house.
In granting a provisional sequestration order against the estate of former bookkeeper Louise Bowker, who admitted earlier this year to owing more than a million rands to Grahamstown vet Philip Gilfillan – money a judge said had been stolen – another judge has now called into question substantial loan repayments she made to family members after selling her house.
While Bowker had not been formally charged, her high court application in late September for access to funds frozen by the State, to cover her legal expenses, brought the matter into the public domain. At the time, Judge JE Smith said that allowing Bowker to use money which had "admittedly been stolen from Gilfillan and his close corporation" would prejudice Gilfillan's interests.
The amount Bowker allegedly misappropriated is in dispute, with Gilfillan – according to the most recent court documents – saying the amounts in question are R3 143 796.88 and R192 588. According to last week's judgment, Bowker admitted to an amount of R1 287 715.91, of which she had repaid R732 294.61.
According to the earlier court documents, by the end of September Bowker had repaid Gilfillan R653 000 and had borrowed R441 749.81 from family members, being held in trust by her attorneys, to repay what she said was the full balance.
In Thursday's judgment in the high court in Grahamstown, Judge AJ Beyleveld said Bowker's paying back of "loans" – the Judge put the word in quotation marks – to family members "cries out for investigation by a Trustee". This was among the reasons he gave for granting the sequestration order against Bowker's estate.
Judge Beyleveld wrote that through the granting of a sequestration order, it was possible that "…through the Act's machinery, impeachable transactions, the concealment of assets and other irregularities are detected, exposed and remedied, with the result that the single creditor eventually recovers more than ordinary execution would have yielded".
Bowker's legal team indicated on Thursday that they would not be opposing the sequestration order. She has until 24 November to do so.
Her creditors’ application for sequestration in the Grahamstown High Court was submitted to the High Court by NN Dullabh & Co on the instruction of Gilfillan and Cancri Tropicus 144 CC.
Bowker's unsuccessful high court application in September was to have assets released from among those placed under a June restraint order, to cover her legal costs. The order was in terms of section 26 of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act.
