Artist’s wife and brother in battle over will
She was 17 and he 66 when they met — now the fight is on for his estate
● The wife of an artist best known for a pyramid of oranges is fighting for the right to do exactly what he invited his audience to do: enjoy the fruit of his labour.
Alida Louw, 32, who was married to the late Roelof Louw, is butting heads in court with his wealthy younger brother, Henry, over four purported wills.
Roelof’s perishable 1967 artwork in London, consisting of 5 800 oranges which he invited visitors to eat, has been described as raising “questions about ephemerality, time and decay”.
The court action poses similar questions over the couple’s relationship, which began in 2001 when Alida, then 17, was still at school and met the then 66-year-old artist at the V&A Waterfront in Cape Town. “We liked each other straight away and went for dinner that night,” she said in court papers. “We were engaged for a year before [our daughter] was born. We got married on 19 July 2003 in Wellington.”
The artist died in October aged 82, and Alida still has his ashes at the home they shared in Cape Town. She says she cannot afford to bury them.
This week, Alida told the Sunday Times she was battling to pay their daughter’s fees at a top high school and the child had no medical aid.
She unwrapped a parcel to reveal the ashes. “This was going to be buried next to his mother and father. I hope I will start working soon, and my first salary is going to pay for his burial,” she said.
Roelof’s estate includes two homes in Woodstock. Henry, a prominent businessman, wants the High Court in Cape Town to appoint a curator to look after the interests of the couple’s 15-year-old daughter.
In an affidavit, Henry said Roelof did not have the means to fully support the child. Henry and his wife, Lynette, paid for Roelof’s studio and gave him a monthly salary of up to R53 000, which was intended as a loan.
“The deceased passed away after a long battle with cancer,” the affidavit stated.
Court scrutiny
The will facing court scrutiny says the couple’s daughter should be raised in one of his houses and “always have her own exclusive room and a good environment to study and develop. It is a small house and other people should not live there or occupy the house.”
Alida has a baby — she was pregnant at Roelof’s funeral in October — and lives with the child’s father, Roger, an arrangement she said had Roelof’s blessing. She believes Henry’s litigation is motivated by greed.
“Roelof was actually the one who introduced Roger to his family,” said Alida. “He told them that he was welcoming him into the family because in the event that something happened to him, he didn’t want me to fall apart.
Louw’s perishable 1967 artwork, consisting of 5 800 oranges piled up in London, which he invited visitors to eat, has been described as raising “questions about ephemerality, time and decay”.
“Roger helped take care of him, keeping him company.
“It was not a secret affair, it was in the open. Henry used to come during Roelof’s last days and used to find him here.”
Alida said her husband had investments in the family trust which were “worth about R3-million, and we lived on the interest from that investment every month”.
Money for farm
She said Henry had taken Roelof’s artworks without her permission and that she knew of only one will, signed at lawyer Barry Varkel’s office in 2003.
The young widow said her husband’s late mother owned Dreyersdal Farm in Bergvliet.
“Because Roelof was her oldest son, Roelof inherited most of the farm,” Alida’s affidavit said. “I understand the farm is now owned by Polyoak Prop . . . which is Henry’s company. The farm was purchased by Polyoak for [R28.5-million] in 2014. I want to know who received this money.”
Henry’s lawyer, Ryan Dingley, told the Sunday Times the master of the high court had decided Roelof’s oldest will, signed in 2003, must be read with the third will, signed in December 2016.
The 2003 will would “substantially benefit Alida in that it provides for her to receive the two immovable properties as well as 70% of the remaining estate”, he said.
“In the third will, however, Alida does not receive the immovable property now, with both properties being transferred to a testamentary trust.
“Then when [the couple’s daughter] turns 24, one property is to be transferred to her and . . . the other . . . to Alida.
“As you can see, Alida and [the daughter] have divergent interests as far as the . . . wills are concerned and it would be in the best interests of [the daughter], as a minor, that she be represented . . . by an independent third party.”
Dingley said Henry did not stand to benefit financially from the estate or from the appointment of a curator. He only wanted to protect the daughter’s interests.
The matter is to be heard next month.