A widowed woman was given 30 days to leave her property after failing to convince the Limpopo High Court in Polokwane that her son had sold it fraudulently.
Sekedi Sarah Mokumo registered the residence after her spouse Botana Simon Mathye died in September 2009.
In December 2019, Mokumo executed a deed of sale with Matome Paul Ramalepe as the buyer.
The house was sold for R330,000 and then transferred to Ramalepe’s name in September 2021.
Mokumo refused to quit the residence, saying that her son, Thapelo Innocent Mathye, illegally signed the selling deed and other transfer documents without her knowledge or agreement.
When Mokumo refused to quit the property, Ramalepe filed eviction proceedings in the Magistrate’s Court, and in July 2023, the court awarded him an eviction order against him.
Mokumo petitioned the high court to overturn the eviction order, citing his dissatisfaction with the Magistrate’s decision.
In her application, she claimed that the eviction order was improperly imposed in her absence, and that the deed of sale was fraudulent and should be declared void.
Looking at the evidence, two judges, judge Marisa Naudé-Odendaal and acting judge Nathi Gaisa, stated that the record shows that Mokumo was not present in court when the eviction was granted; yet, the Magistrate made a decision based on her affidavit.
It was also highlighted that her replying affidavit did not include a defense.
It was also stated that when the case was heard in the Magistrates’ Court, she was summoned to both Court A and Court B but did not appear.
In her explanation, she stated she was at the courthouse that day but was in the restroom when the case was called.
The two judges found her reason for her absence unconvincing. She had appeared in court on numerous occasions and was familiar with the proceedings.
“Her claim of being in the bathroom when the matter was called is insufficient to explain her absence,” the jury’s verdict said.
The conveyancer, Elana Goosen, also provided proof, confirming that Mokumo signed the transfer forms in her presence in January 2020.
Her signature on the deed of sale and transfer paperwork matched the signature on the court affidavit. She failed to produce expert proof to back up her counterfeit signature claim.
Furthermore, she agreed to receiving monies in her bank account, but claimed it was not the whole purchase amount.
The judges also stated that Mokumo refuses to depart the premises and has not offered to reimburse the money.
“The appellant’s (Mokumo) conduct throughout the proceedings reflects an attempt to postpone the case rather than establish a legitimate defence…
“Her claims of fraud are not supported by credible evidence, and she has not provided a satisfactory explanation for her absence when the order was granted,” the judge said.
Mokumo’s application was denied and he was given until September 5 to remove the property.
She was also ordered to pay the expenses of the appeal.
