SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document
in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO: 2023-119339
In the matter between:
ADELE FERMOYLE N.O
(In her capacity as executor for the late estate:
JOHN PATRICK SMITH, estate no: 9051/2023)
Applicant
and
10X INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD First Respondent
SHAUN BOWIE Second Respondent
GUARDRISK LIFE LIMITED Third Respondent
THE MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG Fourth Respondent
JUDGMENT
WATT-PRINGLE AJ:
[1] This is an application by the executor of the estate of the late John Patrick
Smith (“the deceased” or “Mr Smith”) for an order declaring that the records of
the beneficiaries held by the first respondent (“10X Investments” or “10X”) in
respect of the deceased’s living annuity policy (policy number LA204185) are
invalid, null and void; and that the proceeds of the policy are to be paid to the
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED.
6 March 2026
DATE SIGNATURE
2
deceased’s estate, on the basis that no valid beneficiary was on record at the
time of his death.
[2] The application is opposed by the second respondent, Mr Shaun Bowie (“Mr
Bowie”), who claims to be the nominated beneficiary. The first respondent, 10X
Investments, abides the decision of the Court.
[3] The central issue for determination is whether it has been shown, on a balance
of probabilities, that the Mr Bowie was “ nominated” as beneficiary in the 10X
profile of Mr Smith without the knowledge or consent of the deceased.
[4] For purposes of the relief sought it is not strictly necessary to decide who
purported to make the nomination, only whether it was Mr Smith who did so,
either personally or through his authorised agent.
[5] I have however concluded that the applicant is entitled to the relief sought on
the basis that it was Mr Bowie who accessed 10X investment profile of Mr
Smith and inserted his name “ Shaun” as the 100% beneficiary of Mr Smith’s
living annuity investment, without Mr Smith’s knowledge or consent.
[6] With the benefit of hearing viva vo ce evidence, the clearest route to my
conclusion is via the facts as I see them and those facts point overwhelmingly
to the conclusion that Mr Bowie, without the knowledge or consent of Mr Smith,
purported to make the nomination.
[7] There is an ancillary issue as to whether the person with whom the deceased
co-habited at the time of his death, Mr Marius Verster, who also testified as Mr
Bowie’s witness, was involved in the purported nomination of Mr Bowie.
[8] The deceased passed away on 17 October 2022 after a prolonged illness. At
the time of his death, he held a living annuity policy with 10X Investments.
3
[9] The Applicant, as executor, made enquiries with 10X Investments regarding the
existence of any nominated beneficiary. She was ultimately informed that the
only beneficiary on record was a person named “ Shaun”, with no surname
provided at the time.
[10] The Applicant was unaware of any person by that name with whom her late
brother was associated and launched further enquiries concerning the
circumstances under which this nomination was made. Following a PAIA
request to 10X Investments which gave the applicant access to information and
documents concerning the details of the nomination and of the various further
occasions on which the profile was accessed and altered, the applicant was
convinced that the nomination had been made by irregular means without her
late brother’s knowledge or consent. It emerged that Mr Smith’s profile had
been accessed on multiple occasions between 12 May 2022 and the date of his
death, and, notably, about two weeks after his death.
[11] Despite the patently suspicious circumstances surrounding the purported
nomination, the applicant’s en treaties to 10X Investments not to accept the
nomination without thor ough investigation, 10X Investments, indicated its
intention to pay the proceeds of the investment to Mr Bowie “following
extensive investigation” 1. T he applicant therefore launched an urgent
application interdicting the payment, pending the present proceedings.
[12] This matter was before me in May 2025 as an opposed motion. I concluded
while there were clear probabilities that the nomination may have been
fraudulent, there were disputes of fact incapable of resolution on paper and I
therefore referred the matter to oral evidence on limited issues pursuant to an
1 Email dated 2 November 2023 fro m 10X’s Jade Longano advising various internal and
extremal parties of 10X’s intention to pay out the benefit by 30 November 2023.
4
order drafted on terms acceptable to both parties . I also ordered that discovery
of documents relevant to the issues referred to oral evidence be made by the
applicant, 10X Investments and Mr Bowie. I furthermore expressed the view
that 10X Investments had not served the interests of justice, or of its now
deceased client, Mr Smith, by remaining aloof from a controversy which, as this
judgment will show, was in no small measure of its making.
[13] 10X Investments ought in my view clearly to have declined to accept the
nomination. This is implicit in the report it compiled within days or my judgment
directing that this matter be referred to oral evidence and suggesting that 10X
had a fiduciary responsibility to the estate of the late Mr Smith to act diligently
in ensuring that effect would be given to his wishes , post his demise. Had 10X
declined to pay Mr Bowie, it would have been Mr Bowie and not the applicant
who would have had to launch proceedings , assuming he had the confidence
to do so 2. Mr Bowie was clearly emboldened by the initial position adopted by
10X. Following its second investigation in June 2025, 10X concluded that the
purported nomination did not in fact represent Mr Smith’s wishes.
[14] The applicant’s case on motion was based both on her own evidence and on
the audit trail and email correspondence between 10X Investments and a
person identifying himself as M arius Verster, using the email address l[…] , and
between 10X Investments and Mr Bowie, following the death of the deceased.
[15] 10X Investments was the first respondent and the entity against whom relief
was sought, insofar as declaratory relief can be said to be “ against” any party.
2 For reasons that will become apparent, it is doubtful that Mr Bowie would have done so.
Without the benefit of the more thorough10X investigation carried our belatedly in June 2025
after I ordered that this matter be referred to oral evidence, Mr Bowie was able to braz en the
matter out in his answering affidavit. Once confronted with Mr van Zyl’s detailed investigation
of the audit trail showing what had happened in relation to Mr Smith’s profile between May
and October 2022, it became impossible for him to present an exculpatory version that could
withstand scrutiny.
5
Mr Bowie as the putative nominee clearly had an interest in the matter, hence
his joinder as second respondent. The applicant’s difficulty when I heard the
matter as an opposed motion in May 2025 was that while the part of the audit
trail and other documents produced by 10X Investments were admissible as
against 10X, they were not admitted for the trut h of their contents by Mr Bowie.
Mr Bowie’s version was that although he had no knowledge of the 10X
investment and no direct knowledge of any nomination or how it came about,
he had had a prior relationship with the deceased, was in touch with him prior
to his death and the deceased had undertaken to look after him financially .
Therefore, he contended, the nomination represented the wishes of the
deceased.
[16] At the time it appeared to be common cause that the emails purportedly from
Mr Verster in November 2022 (after Mr Smith’s death) from the email address
l[…] were in fact from Mr Verster. In those emails “Mr Verster” placed
significant pressure on 10X to pay out Mr Bowie without delay, and in one of
them Mr Verster represented that he was co- executor of Mr Smith’s estate,
which is not the case. (He was an alternate, if the applicant was not available.)
These emails suggested that Mr Verster may have colluded with Mr Bowie in
procuring Mr Bowie’s nomination without Mr Smith’s consent.
[17] In her founding affidavit, the applicant for good reason at the time alleged that
the email address l[…] as well as the mobile number commencing 060 w ere Mr
Vester’s. In response Mr Bowie responded that he had “ no knowledge” as to
the veracity of those allegations , although he alleged that he had created the
email address “about four years ago” for Mr Smith . (It is now common cause
that the 060 number is in fact his and I find, for reasons that follow, that so too
is the email address l[…] )
6
[18] Confounding the probabilities even further is that Mr Verster had on 22 August
2022 (less than two months before Mr Smith’s death) been named as the sole
heir to Mr Smith’s estate. Absent a valid nomination, the 10X investment would
fall into that estate and ostensibly into Mr Verster’s hands.
[19] There was thus a dispute of fact on the papers, not assisted by 10X
Investment’s decision to sit on its hands and allow the applicant alone to fight
for the vindication of Mr Smith’s true intentions.
[20] Pursuant to a judgment I handed down on 10 June 2025, t he matter was
referred to oral evidence on the following issues:
a. the possible methods by which the deceased’s 10X Investments
portal could have been accessed for purposes of making a
beneficiary nomination during the period May to November 2022;
b. the occasions and manner in which the deceased’s 10X Investments
profile was in fact accessed during the period;
c. whether the use of the cell phone number 081 509 3076 was
necessary to access 10X Investments profile on the relevant
occasions;
d. whether the deceased or any other person had access to and/or use
of the cell phone number 0[…] during the period.
[21] The applicant testified and her counsel called two additional witnesses : Jade
Longano (CFO of 10X Investments) and Rehan Van Zyl (senior developer at
10X Investments). The Second Respondent testified and called t wo additional
witnesses: Ivan Du Plessis (IT manager) and Marius Verster.
7
[22] The Applicant’s case is that the deceased could not have personally accessed
the 10X portal to nominate Mr Bowie as beneficiary, as he did not have use of
the registered cell phone required for the OTP (one- time pin) authentication
process at the relevant times. The Applicant further contends that the portal
was accessed and the beneficiary nomination effected by a person other than
the deceased, using contact details and an email address not belonging to the
deceased, and that this person was Mr Bowie.
[23] The evidence established that Mr Smith’s 10X Inve stments member profile
could be remotely accessed on 10X Investments member portal and certain
changes made to it by the investor or a person authorised by him in the
following manner. The user would input the member’s identity number. The 10X
Investments portal would then send a one- time password (OTP) to the mobile
number associated with the member’s profile. If that OTP was not used, an
OTP would be sent to the email address associated with the member’s profile.
Once an OTP was used as required, the login was complete and the person
was successfully logged in.
[24] The OTP send to the mobile phone w ould not be the same as the one sent to
the email address. Consequently, 10X Investments can ascertain after the fact
which of the OTPs was used. This is important to the facts of this case.
[25] It is also possible to ascertain the internet service provider ( ISP) used by the
person logging in, which in turn allows 10X Investments to ascertain the
geographic location of the device used for the login. This was referred to as
“geolocation” in the evidence. I t is theoretically possible to disguise the
geolocation using a virtual public network ( VPN), but this assumes that the
person logging in would have reason to disguise his geolocation. There is no
such probability in this case.
8
[26] Mr van Zyl’s witness statement, which he confirmed at the commencement of
his evidence in chief, and which remained undisturbed in cross -examination
included the following analysis of the audit trail:
“FACTUAL FINDINGS
Unauthorized change of contact details (12 May 2022)
12. The first irregular event I discovered was an unauthorized change to
Mr Smith's registered contact information, which occurred on 12 May
2022. This was a precursor to the beneficiary change and essentially
enabled potential fraud. The details are as follows:
12.1 On 12 May 2022, a support ticket was logged in 10X's system
(HubSpot Ticket #906720077) based on an email received from
an address ‘r[…] ’. The sender of that email posed as Mr John
Smith and requested that 10X ‘remove my old cell phone
number and email’ on file and update the account with a new
cell phone number 0[…] and a new email address (given as
‘Z[…] ’, his known email address) - purportedly because the
sender was the client wanting to update his contact info. The
email was signed off ‘Kind regards, John Patrick Smith.’
12.2 The email ‘r[…] ’ was not Mr Smith's known email. Mr Smith's
actual email address (‘Z[…] ’, as per our records prior to this
change) was different, and he typically communicated via that
official email or phone.
12.3 The request on 12 May 2022 came from an unknown Gmail
account and should have been treated as suspicious. However,
it appears the support staff member handling the ticket took the
request at face value, likely because the third party provided Mr
Smith's correct ID number in the email.
12.4 In response to that support request, a 10X support agent
manually updated Mr Smith's profile on the back-end.
12.5 At 09:46:06 SAST, on 12/05/2022, the audit log shows that the
support staff updated the user's cell phone number from +2[…]
to 0[…] . In other words, the primary contact number on Mr
Smith's account was changed from his existing number (0[…] -
a number known to be used by Mr Smith) to a new number
a number known to be used by Mr Smith) to a new number
0[…] (which was not a known number for Mr Smith).
12.6 This action is believed to be unauthorized by Mr Smith. By
persuading a support staff member to alter the contact details
without authenticating through Mr Smith's actual OTP or any
other known direct confirmation, the third party gained control
of the account's recovery and authentication channels.
9
12.7 From this point forward, any OTP sent for Mr Smith's account
access would go to 0[…] (the third-party's phone) instead of to
Mr Smith's known phone.
13. It is worth noting that, in May 2022, 10X's procedures did allow
support staff to make certain profile changes upon client request, but
this case shows a potential breakdown of security protocols—the
request came from an unknown source, and the change was done
manually and possibly without additional member verification.
Unauthorized account access and beneficiary addition (19 May 2022)
14. With Mr Smith's contact information now controlled by the third party
(after 12 May 2022), the next major event was the addition of a
beneficiary to Mr Smith's policy under suspicious circumstances on
19 May 2022. The timeline on that day, pieced together from the
logs, is as follows:
14.1 On the morning of 19 May 2022, someone logged into Mr
Smith's My10X online account using Mr Smith's personal
credentials (ID number) and an OTP. Because the primary cell
phone on the account at that time was set to the third-party's
number (0[…] ), the One-Time Pin for login was sent via SMS to
that number. The audit log shows that, at 07:13:25 SAST, an
OTP was issued to the number 0[…] , and, by 07:13:35, the
OTP was successfully verified, allowing a login. The IP address
recorded for this login was 41.113.27.67, which geolocates to
Johannesburg on the MTN network.
14.2 Immediately following the successful login, the intruder used Mr
Smith's online profile to add a new beneficiary to Mr Smith's
10X living annuity policy. The audit log captures this event at
07:17:29 SAST, on 19/05/2022, with an entry:
"Beneficiaries.Insert.Success Inserting beneficiaries
succeeded." The details of the beneficiary added are recorded
in the log and can be summarized as follows:
14.2.1 Name: ‘Shaun’ (no surname given in the audit excerpt,
just the first name was captured as the FullName field).
14.2.2 Relationship to Policyholder: ‘Other’ (the person was
14.2.2 Relationship to Policyholder: ‘Other’ (the person was
not categorized under standard relations like Spouse or
Child at this stage—' Other’ was selected). (p. 8)
14.2.3 Date of Birth: 10 January 1995.
14.2.4 ID/Passport Number: 9[…] (which correlates with a
South African ID number for someone born on 1995-
01-10, gender male).
14.2.5 Contact Number: 0[… ].
14.2.6 Email Address: l[… ].
10
14.2.7 Percentage of Benefit Allocation: 100%.
14.3 In plain terms, the beneficiary ‘Shaun’ was given 100% of the
benefit of Mr Smith's investment. This was the first time any
beneficiary was recorded on Mr Smith's policy (previously, as I
understand, he either had no beneficiary nominated or one was
set to default). The information provided for ‘Shaun’ is highly
suspicious: the contact number listed for this beneficiary is the
same number that had just been set as Mr Smith's contact a
week prior, and the email l[…] was likewise not Mr Smith's
known email.
14.4 The audit logs show that a few minutes after adding the
beneficiary, the third party performed another critical action: at
07:24:07-07:24:36 SAST, the account's contact details were
changed again via the My10X portal, this time using the normal
user interface, not through support. Specifically, the cell phone
number on Mr Smith's profile was changed back to 0[… ] (Mr
Smith's original number) and the email address on file was
changed to ‘L[…] .’ (entry at 07:24:36 on 19/05/2022).
14.5 This step is very telling. It appears the third party, after
successfully inserting ‘Shaun’ as beneficiary, wanted to restore
Mr Smith's phone number on the account—possibly to reduce
the chance of immediate detection so that Mr Smith might
continue to receive SMS OTPs or notices on his phone and not
realize it had been changed earlier.
14.6 However, the third party did not restore Mr Smith's correct
email; instead, he set Mr Smith's email contact to another email
(l[… ]). By doing so, a third party could now receive
communications (especially emails) from 10X, including any
OTPs sent via email or any account change confirmations.
15. In summary, the events of 19 May 2022 show a clear case of
unauthorized access and manipulation: an unknown person
accessed the account by exploiting the prior support-assisted
contact change, added a beneficiary, and then partially backtracked
contact change, added a beneficiary, and then partially backtracked
the contact info to cover their tracks while maintaining a foothold (the
email) in the account.”
[27] But for 10X’s conduct described in paragraphs 12.3, 12.4 and 13 of this report,
it is improbable that Mr Bowie would have been able to do what I have found he
did.
[28] For Mr Bowie, Mr Ivan du Plessis was called as an expert witness with
appropriate IT expertise and experience. He had also considered the 10X
Investments audit trail concerning Mr Smith’s profile in respect of changes
11
made to it on 19 May 2022. Mr du Plessis was a credible witness, but his
evidence did not differ in any material respect from that of Mr an Zyl. He was
unable to comment on the email from the r […] email address which had set the
entire course of events regarding the purported nomination of “ Shaun” in
motion. On the face of it, the activity on the profile on 19 May 2022 was in
accordance with 10X’s normal protocols, and that was his evidence. It is
unclear why he was called at all, given that he did not take issue with Mr van
Zyl’s evidence.
[29] I now tur n to the evidence of Mr Bowie. Mr Bowie was not an impressive
witness. His fundamental difficulty was that in his answering affidavit he had
claimed no knowledge of Mr Smith’s 10X investment prior to Mr Smith’s death,
or of how it came about that he was nominated as sole beneficiary of the death
benefit. His evidence on affidavit was that he was in communication with Mr
Smith in September 2022 when Mr Smith was at 1 Military Hospital and Mr
Smith had indicated that “he wanted to care for me because we helped each
other out and that his life was coming to an end. ” He says that he vi sited Mr
Smith in hospital on 16 October 20022 (the day before Mr Smith died) and that
“I was not aware of the policy at the time of his passing, I cannot recall him ever
discussing it with me.”
[30] However, on receipt inter alia of Mr van Zyl’s detailed analysis of the audit trail
and the fact that his mobile phone number was the one inserted as the one to
which OTP’s should be and were sent, thereby facilitating access to Mr Smith’s
10X profile, he changed his version. He testified to the entirely new version that
Mr Smith requested his assistance to access his profile and that his role was
limited to providing the OTP to Mr Smith when it arrived as an SMS on his
mobile phone. What Mr Smith had done once he had gained access to his
12
profile was , according to his evidence, a mat ter between Mr Smith and 10X
Investments about which he had no knowledge.
[31] He could not explain why , according to his version, Mr Smith had changed the
mobile phone number associated with his profile back to the 081 number,
which had not been in use since 2021 and was no longer available to Mr Smith.
Or why Mr Smith had apparently changed from his email address to the l […]
address, to which OTPs were in fact were sent and used to access the profile
on multiple occasions from May to October 2022, as per Mr van Zyl’s statement
above.
[32] Mr Bowie’s evidence was riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies:
a. He gave different timeframes for his relationship with the deceased
in his affidavit and oral evidence.
b. He claimed not to have met the deceased’s family but was
contradicted by a transcript of his conversation with one Valery Sher,
who interviewed him on behalf of the applicant’s attorneys, showing
that according to Mr Bowie he had been to the residence of Caryn,
Mr Smith’s other sister.
c. He claimed but provided no credible evidence of a relationship of
mutual financial support between him and Mr Smith.
d. He gave conflicting accounts regarding the creation and use of the
email address l […] . From his affidavit it appears that he admitted
creating that email address, allegedly for Mr Smith to use. In his
evidence he claimed no knowledge of it at all.
13
e. He was unable to provide proof that OTPs were sent to the
deceased, but could provide other evidence from the same period,
suggesting that such proof did not exist.
[33] Mr Bowie produced “screenshots” of vital exchanges with Mr Smith, supporting
the notion that Mr Smith had used him to provide OTPs and supporting his
version that Mr Smith intended to “look after” him as they had allegedly always
done for one another. The difficulty with these screenshots is that they were
either undated or taken in such a manner that they could have been created at
any time. I do not accept the authenticity of these so- called screenshots. If they
are authentic, there is no explanation as to why they were not referenced in M r
Bowie’s answering affidavit.
[34] There is a screenshot of an exchange purportedly between Mr Bowie and Mr
Smith (appearing on Mr Bowie’s mobile phone WhatsApp account as “ Juan
Smith”) on 19 M ay 2022, commencing at 08h44 and ending at 09h02, which
reads like this:
3
“[JS] I am not that old and want to live now. They just ...[obscured by a
system message ” Screenshot and recordings”]
[JS] A
[JS] Yes
[SB] What is you policy number or ID number
[JS] 5[… ]
[JS] ID
[JS] Now you can see how ancient I am
[JS] Ok
[JS] Thank you
3 I have inserted [JS] indicating “Juan Smith” and [SB] indicating Mr Bowie.
14
[SB] 10x needs a letter from you to give us permission to work on the
profile
[JS] FFS, I dong
[JS] Don’t have a computer which is working
[SB] Shit
[JS] I will need to buy a computer. Hawkins fucked up my pc and laptop”
[35] It must be borne in mind that “Mr Smith” using the ronburger email address had
already one week earlier, on 12 May 2022, changed the mobile number on his
profile to Mr Bowie’s 060 number and requested 10X to use his already existing
email address. Also, that on 19 May 2022 at 07:13:25 an OTP was sent to Mr
Bowie’s mobile phone via SMS and Mr Smith’s profile successfully accessed
10 seconds later at 08:13:35. The person who lo gged into Mr Smith’s profile
inserted a beneficiary where previously none had been nominated. The precise
details of the person nominated are recorded in the extract from Mr van Zyl’s
statement reproduced above. This includes Mr Bowie’s date of birth, ID
number, contact number (the 060 number which was also associated with Mr
Smith’s profile) and the email address l […] . Shortly after that, the mobile
number associated with the profile was inexplicably changed back to the
useless 081 number and the same email address l[…] was inserted in the place
of Mr Smith’s email address, so that in future, if the OTP sent to the defunct
081 mobile number was not used, a new one would be sent to the nominated
email address.
[36] The location of the person logging in on 19 May 2022 was geolocated to
Johannesburg. At the time Mr Smith was , according to the applicant’s
uncontradicted evidence, living in Cape Town, while Mr Bowie was in the
Johannesburg area. Indeed, Mr Bowie in his answering affidavit refers to Mr
Smith going to live in Cape Town in March 2022, which is where he lived until
15
Mr Verster brought him to Johannesburg during June 2022, to live with him and
his daughter.
[37] Yet according to Mr Bowie he had the above WhatsApp exchange with Mr
Smith, after Mr Smith had supposedly unbeknown to him already nominated
him as beneficiary , between 08h44 and 09h02 that same morning. The
objective audit trail evidence, and Mr Bowie’s evidence including the purported
screenshot of a WhatsApp exchange on 19 May 2022, are irreconcilable.
[38] The WhatsApp exchange indicates that armed with a letter from Mr Smith, 10X
would allow “us to work on the profile”. Yet Mr Bowie’s version is that he never
accessed the profile at all. He did no more than send an OTP to Mr Smith to
facilitate the latter’s access to his own profile. On Mr Bowie’s version, once the
mobile number on the profile was changed back to the then defunct 081
number and Mr Smith had accessed the profile, he had no further part in
accessing Mr Smith’s profile.
[39] Tellingly, when asked why he had kept the 19 May 2022 WhatsApp screenshot
reproduced above, Mr Bowie said that he had done so to deal with just such an
enquiry as that with which this application is concerned. Yet in his answering
affidavit he did not reference the WhatsApp exchange and in fact ventured a
version that he knew nothing at all about the investment until after Mr Smith’s
death.
[40] In the circumstances Mr Bowie was unable to explain his vol te face, despite ill-
defined attempts to blame the lack of candour in his answering affidavit on his
erstwhile attorneys. He did not however suggest that he had provided them
with the version advanced before me and that they had inexplicably failed to
16
capture this version in his answering affidavit. As deponent he must take full
responsibility for the version he gave under oath.
[41] After Mr Bowie , his counsel called Mr Verster. A brief unsigned witness
statement had been delivered by Mr Bowie’s attorneys over the weekend prior
to the commencement of the hearing on Monday 8 D ecember 2025. Mr Verster
was asked to confirm this statement under oath. He said that he would do so
with certain deletions and amendments . As it transpired, these were neither
minor nor inconsequential. Either Mr Ver ster was not consulted on the
delivered version of his statement, or he changed his version overnight. The
most significant of these is that he sought deletion of the version that he had
sent email correspondence to 10X Investments in the months following Mr
Smith’s death. It was thus according to his evidence not the case that emails
sent from l […] were sent by him. A further implication of this ev idence is that
the OTP’s sent to that email address over the period 19 May to 30 October
2022 were not received or acted upon by him . Nor could it reasonably be
inferred that the late Mr Smith had received OTP’s via that email address prior
to his death, on the basis that he co-habited with Mr Verster.
[42] Given the content of the emails sent from that account to 10X in November
2022, there is only one other person who could have used that email address
and that is Mr Bowie. While it is true that this version was never put to Mr
Bowie, that is because his attorney had delivered a witness statement for Mr
Verster confirming that the email address and correspondence w ere his, only
for Mr Verster to disown that version. Counsel for the applicant could not put a
contrary version to Mr Bowie. Counsel for Mr Bowie did not seek to recall Mr
Bowie, nor did she seek to cross examine Mr Verster on the basis that he was
a hostile witness.
17
[43] There are difficulties with Mr Verster’s evidence too. Mr Verster and Mr Smith
had been in a relationship and co- habited in 2005 and 2006. He testified that
they had thereafter maintained a platonic relationship. In February 2022, when
Mr Smith was living in Middelburg in the Eastern Cape, Mr Smith posted an
advertisement on Facebook that he wished to purchase a property, and he ill-
advisedly revealed that he had his R2.2 million 10X Investments nest egg to
pay for it . Mr Verster posted a comment on the post, which suggests that he
was aware of the 10X investment. Although Mr Verster’s evidence when asked
about this was vague and evasive, he did not deny the post or that he may, as
the applicant testified, have commented on it, but asserted that the first time he
became aware of the 10X investment was in July 2022.
[44] He however testified that from about February 2022 he and Mr Smith rekindled
their romantic relationship, remotely it would appear . Given the events that
followed over the next six months, the public post about M r Smith’s 10X
investment, Mr Verster’s sudden renewed interest in a man he had last been in
a relationship with some 18 years previously does not smack of mere
coincidence.
[45] In March 2022 Mr Smith relocated to C ape Town where he co-habited with one
Gareth. Gareth, according to both Mr Verster ( and Mr Bowie) was allegedly
abusive to Mr Smith who was in poor health because of a brain tumour which
inter alia affected his balance and left him wheelchair bound. So much so that
in June 2022, Mr Verster and his brother travelled to Cape Town and brought
Mr Smith back to live with Mr Verster and his daughter in Carletonville , later
Fochville, both to the west of Johannesburg. A cynical view would be that the
catalyst for this sudden affection and concern for Mr Smith may have been the
10X investment. Subsequent events do nothing to dispel this inference.
18
[46] On 14 July 2022, Mr Venter and Mr Smith became engaged. This was a mere
three weeks after Mr Smith had relocated from living with G areth to living with
Mr Verster. On 15 August 2022, Mr Verster and Mr Smith consulted an attorney
who drew up a will for Mr Smith. His sole beneficiary was Mr Verster.
[47] Mr Verster confirmed that he has no assets or investments to speak of, and nor
did Mr Smith, save for his 10X investment. Shortly after Mr Smith died, Mr
Verster sent a WhatsApp to the applicant stating that he hoped that she and
her sister would benefit from the 10X investment and that “none of those
losers” would get it. He confirmed that he was referring to Mr Bowie and
Gareth. Mr Verster’s expressed hope that Mr Smith’s sisters would benefit and
not Mr Verster himsel f, when he had recently been nominated sole heir per Mr
Smith’s recently attested will, seems improbable.
[48] Even more inexplicable is that despite his initial disdain for Mr Bowie as a
possible heir to the 10X investment, Mr Verster had supported Mr Bowie’s
claim to the 10X investment after he became aware of the nomination. That his
suspicions were not aroused by Mr Smith’s left -field nomination of Mr Bowie
even as he was making Mr Verster sole heir to what little would remain after his
death seems improbable in the extreme.
[49] Mr Verster justified his support for the Bowie nomination on the basis that after
Mr Smith’s death, Mr Bo wie had told him how he had cared for Mr Smith
following surgery that he had undergone after their relationship had ended, and
that it seemed from what he was told that Mr Smith and Mr Bowie really cared
for one another. It is implausible that he would so easily have accepted Mr
Bowie’s convenient version provided after Mr Smith’s death, a version never
previously disclosed to him by Mr Smith to whom he was supposedly engaged.
19
[50] Asked by Mr Bowie’s counsel whether he still supported Mr Bowie getting the
money, he remained equivocal. This even though as matters stand, Mr V erster
as sole heir is in line for the 10X investment should the purported nomination of
Mr Bowie be declared unlawful.
[51] I have serious difficulty with this version. Mr Verster sat through Mr Bowie’s
somewhat torrid cross examination. By the time he testified, it must have been
apparent to him that Mr Bowie had inserted himself as beneficiary. He could
offer no reason why, despite his and Mr Smith’s marriage plans, he was
sanguine about Mr Smith leaving his sole asset of any value to a man young
enough to be his grandson, whom he had regarded as a “loser”.
[52] It must also have been apparent to him that the emails sent to 10X, purportedly
from him, were in fact sent by Mr Bowie. There is no other possible candidate
for that role. The probabilities point to Mr Verster having known more than he is
prepared to say about the manipulation of Mr Smith’s 10X profile. If they were
jointly complicit, that would explain why even now that Mr Verster is sole heir,
he is not prepared to condemn Mr Bowie as a fraudster who nominated himself.
[53] I am satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the nomination of Mr Bowie as
beneficiary was not authorised by the deceased, but was instead the result of
fraudulent conduct by Mr Bowie. The records of 10X Investments purporting to
record such nomination are invalid, null and void.
[54] Clause 7.6 of the 10X policy states that in the absence of a nomination at the
time of the policy holder’s death, the death benefit will be paid into the estate of
the deceased.
[55] Counsel for the applicant sought a costs order against 10X Investments and Mr
Bowie, jointly and severally. I would have been sympathetic to the request in
20
regard to 10X Investments, but for the fact that the Notice of Motion only sought
costs by parties opposing the relief sought, and 10X Investments did not
oppose. Consequently, although 10X Investments is before me in the limited
sense that it is cited as first respondent, it has never been put on notice that
costs may be sought against it. I cannot in those circumstances order it to pay
costs.
[56] In fairness to 10X, my criticism of its initial conduct in the matter has somewhat
been mitigated by the assistance and cooperation its witnesses provided to the
applicant. Their evidence was pivotal to the definitive findings of fact I have
been able to make.
[57] Mr Bowie is for obvious reasons going to be held liable for the applicant’s costs.
ORDER
1. It is declared that the named beneficiary that 10X Investments has on
record for the policy (living annuity) of the deceased under policy number
LA204185 are invalid, null and void.
2. It is declared that the proceeds of the policy under policy LA204185 are to
be paid to the estate late of the deceased, John Patrick Smith.
3. The Second Respondent is ordered to pay the costs of this application on
party and party scale C , such costs to include the costs reserved in my
judgment dated 10 June 2025.
BY THE COURT
_______________________
REGISTRAR
21
__________________________
CE WATT-PRINGLE
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Electronically submitted
Delivered: This judgement was prepared and authored by the Judge whose name is
reflected and is handed down electronically by circulation to the Parties/their legal
representatives by email and by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on
CaseLines. The date for hand-down is deemed to be 6 March 2026.
Date of hearing: 8, 9 and 12 December 2025
Date of judgment: 6 March 2026
Appearances
Counsel for the applicant: Kerry Howard
Instructed by: Vermeulen Attorneys
Counsel for the
second respondent: Thandiwe Ndaba
Instructed by: Mupeti Attorneys