A widowed woman failed to convince the high court that her son fraudulently sold her home and she was given 30 days to move out of the house. Picture: File
A widowed woman failed to convince the Limpopo High Court in Polokwane that her son fraudulently sold her home and she was given 30 days to move out of the house.
The house was registered under Sekedi Sarah Mokumo following the death of her husband Botana Simon Mathye in September 2009.
In December 2019, a deed of sale was signed between Mokumo as the seller and Matome Paul Ramalepe as the buyer.
The house was sold for R330,000 and it was subsequently transferred to Ramalepe’s name in September 2021.
A dispute ensued when Mokumo refused to vacate the house claiming that her son, Thapelo Innocent Mathye, fraudulently signed the deed of sale and other transfer documents without her knowledge or consent.
When Mokumo failed to vacate the property, Ramalepe initiated eviction proceedings in the Magistrate's Court and in July 2023, the court granted him an eviction order against Mokumo.
Aggrieved by the Magistrate’s ruling, Mokumo approached the high court to rescind the eviction order.
In her application, she said the eviction order was erroneously granted in her absence and 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 said the record shows that Mokumo was not in court when the eviction was granted, however, the Magistrate relied on her affidavit to make a decision.
It was also noted that her answering affidavit did not disclose a defence.
It was also said that when the matter was heard in the Magistrates’ Court, she was called in both Court A and Court B but she was not present.
In her explanation, she claimed she was at the court building that day but was in the bathroom when the matter was called.
The two judges said her explanation for her absence was not convincing. She had appeared in court on multiple occasions and was aware of the proceedings.
“Her claim of being in the bathroom when the matter was called is insufficient to explain her absence,” read the judgment.
There was also evidence from the conveyancer, Elana Goosen, who confirmed under that Mokumo signed the transfer documents in her presence in January 2020.
Her signature on the deed of sale and transfer documents matched her signature on court affidavits. She failed to provide an expert evidence to support her forged signature claim.
Moreover, she admitted that she received funds in her bank account, but claimed it was not the entire purchase price.
The judges added that Mokumo refuses to vacate the house and yet she was not offering to refund the money.
“The appellant's (Mokumo) conduct throughout the proceedings suggests an attempt to delay the matter rather than present a bona fide 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,” read the judgment.
Mokumo’s application was dismissed and was given until September 5 to vacate the property.
She was also ordered to pay costs of the appeal.
sinenhlanhla.masilela@iol.co.za
IOL News