Court denies man's claim to deceased lover's estate amid family dispute
The Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, has dismissed an application of a man who claims that he is entitled to inherit the estate of his lover of 16 years.
Image: File
A man who claimed to be in a customary marriage with his long-time lover, who died in 2023, has been denied to claim her estate as the children of his partner dispute the marriage and produced a will that did not include him.
Early this week, the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, dismissed Phillip Botha Mogase's claim with costs. Mogase had told the court that he was entitled to inherit the estate of his long-time lover of 16 years and wife, Ntipo Debroah Martha Modiga, who died in June 2023.
Mogase said he and Modiga entered a customary union on December 16, 2009, after being together from 2007. However, Modiga's children, Patrick Modiga and Keitumetse Rafedile, disputed the marriage and admitted that the pair was in a longstanding relationship.
Patrick and Rafedile said their mother left a valid will dated March 3, 2020. They claimed that Modiga included them and her third sibling, Malefynane Modiga, in her will rather than designating her lover, Mogase, as a beneficiary.
She had also nominated Standard Trust Limited or Standard Bank of South Africa Limited as executors of her estate, but they renounced their nomination as executors in writing.
The Master of the High Court: Pretoria issued a letter of executorship to Patrick on July 17, 2023. He proceeded with the administration of the Modiga estate by opening an estate account at First National Bank.
'It accordingly logically follows that the first respondent in his capacity as executor of the deceased estate lawfully took control of the assets of the deceased estate in terms of the Administration of Deceased Estates,' said Acting Judge JF Grobler in his judgment.
Mogase said his lover's children treated him unfairly after she passed away. Seeking legal protections, in his notice of motion dated July 13, 2023, Mogase wanted the children to be prevented from denying him access to his main home in Karenpark, Akasia, until the estate is settled.
He wanted to stop the children from selling any assets belonging to his lover and required them to return her identification cards and any documents belonging to her. He also wanted them to cooperate with him in reporting the estate to the Master's office and sign any necessary forms. Furthermore, Patrick and Rafedile had opposed these claims.
Acting Judge Grobler said that on the basis that the valid will of Modiga was accepted and acted on by the Master of the High Court, the application of Mogase can not stand.
'Even if it is accepted that he entered into customary union with Modiga and was married to her in community of property, which was not the basis upon which he approached the court. He would at best have a claim against Modiga (lover) and not against the two respondents (Patrick and Rafedile),' Grobler added.
Additionally, Grobler expressed his dissatisfaction with Mogase's attorney for failing to comply with the practice directives of the High Court by uploading the heads of argument for this matter on the date of the hearing.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
10 hours ago
- IOL News
Collins Letsoalo's urgent plea for reinstatement amid life-threatening concerns
Suspended Road Accident Fund chief executive Collins Letsoalo is heading to the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, to challenge his suspension, get his job back, and retain his security detail amid threats to his life. Image: Supplied Suspended Road Accident Fund (RAF) chief executive Collins Letsoalo has launched an urgent 'life and death' high court application challenging the troubled entity's board, demanding reinstatement and stopping the advertising of his position. In papers filed at the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, on Friday, Letsoalo seeks an order declaring that the RAF Board's decision to suspend him earlier this week be set aside as it was unlawful, irrational, and unreasonable. He wants to immediately resume his duties as the fund's boss. He also wants to interdict and restrain the RAF and its board from advertising the position of chief executive pending the finalisation of the process to re-appoint him to the position. Letsoalo has been RAF chief executive since 2020, with his five-year contract due to end on August 6, but the board has resolved to renew his fixed-term contract upon its expiry. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ In addition to wanting to return to work, he has also asked the high court to ensure that he keeps his security detail. 'As part of my fringe benefits relating to security, I am provided by the first respondent (RAF) with security vehicles and security personnel. There have been threats made to my life during the course of my employment as the chief executive of the RAF. 'The threats come from various sectors, chief among them from the taxi industry. There was a high-risk assessment conducted on me. I have security guards placed at my house,' Letsoalo stated in his founding affidavit. He fears for his safety and that of his family, and he is also entitled to R480,000 a year security. Among the conditions of his suspension is that he return all the RAF property in his possession, including the provision of security. 'There is no doubt that this is a matter of life and death, and I cannot wait any longer and need urgent relief now and not later. A grave injustice will befall me or my family if the urgent relief is not granted, especially when the news of my suspension has been widely circulated in print media, television, and social media,' explained Letsoalo. He added that the risk of harm was real, as if he returned security vehicles and personnel, he and his family would be left without protection and placed in harm's way. Letsoalo also detailed an incident of his life being targeted. 'Last year, a group of heavily armed men arrived at our offices in Centurion demanding to see me. They tied the security personnel with ropes. It was the day we were having a board meeting, and fortunately, the board meeting was online and not at the office,' he explained. A case was opened with the police, and Letsoalo revealed that it later transpired that the individuals were sent by someone in prison to harm him. He undertook to provide the judge presiding over his urgent application with a case number. 'After that incident, the crime intelligence branch of the SA Police Service advised the first respondent (RAF) to beef up my security. The reason why I was provided with security vehicles was that last year, there was an attempt on my life coming from the taxi industry,' he said. Letsoalo was placed on special leave on May 27, but this was withdrawn on Tuesday, June 3, when he was suspended. He indicated that should his application not be heard urgently, it would be delayed for months, and in that time, his employment contract expires in August, and his potential re-employment with the concurrence of Transport Minister Barbara Creecy and Cabinet's approval would in all probability not happen. 'I disavow any reliance on Section 186(2) of the Labour Relations Act as amended, as I do not claim that my suspension was unfair, hence I do not approach the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration. I do not claim the conduct of the respondents (RAF and its board) constitutes unfair labour practice,' he explained. However, Letsoalo categorically and unambiguously stated that his case is that his suspension was unlawful, irrational, and unreasonable. In the period leading up to his suspension, he described Board Chairperson Lorraine Francis as confrontational, accusing him of changing his tune about attending meeting of the National Assembly's Standing Committee on Public Accounts (Scopa) and indicating that he must take leave to clear his mind and think about issues as he had been under extreme pressure, which she stated was compassionate leave. Letsoalo said he refused to take compassionate leave after Francis stated that the board was worried he was taking instructions from his lawyers and wanted him to choose. 'I felt aggrieved that I had to learn about my suspension during the proceedings of the portfolio committee (Scopa) meeting. While I was watching the proceedings of the portfolio committee, I received an SMS from the chairperson of the board, who did not attend the portfolio committee meeting on the allegation that she was attending a prior personal matter,' he said. Letsoalo added that Francis also told him to check his e-mails and found the letter informing him of his suspension and withdrawing the earlier special leave. The suspension was allegedly due to adverse findings made by the Special Investigating Unit (SIU), which he said has been ongoing since 2022. Letsoalo complained that the SIU never gave him a right of reply before presenting its preliminary findings before Parliament. 'If the board felt so strongly about my alleged refusal to attend the Scopa meeting, why could they not use the reason for my refusal to attend the Scopa meeting as a reason for my special leave?' he asked. Letsoalo accused the board of damaging his reputation and integrity and believes that after the board received legal opinion that his special leave was legally suspension, they hastily looked for a reason to suspend him.
The Citizen
2 days ago
- The Citizen
Comrades demands grit but so does the courtroom
Advocate Charles Mnisi's request to miss court after the Comrades Marathon sparked debate on balancing personal ambition with professional and ethical obligations. Judge Ratha Mokgoatlheng put his foot squarely in it yesterday in the High Court in Pretoria when he went on a tirade about a request from a defence lawyer in the Senzo Meyiwa trial to be excused from court on Monday because he is running the Comrades Marathon on Sunday. After angrily speaking about 'justice delayed is justice denied' in a case in which family members have been waiting for closure for a decade, Mokgoatlheng fumed: 'This is what happens in a South Africa run by blacks. A white advocate will never have the gall to ask me that.' While many took offence at what one of them, Good party's Brett Heron, called 'racially divisive language', which is 'entirely unacceptable', I was more intrigued about the fact that a senior advocate, Charles Mnisi, would have thought that taking part in the annual KZN athletic spectacle was more important that defending an accused in a murder case. I wondered, initially, whether advocates have to swear an oath, similar to the Hippocratic one taken by doctors, to act at all times in the best interests of their clients and the legal system. Then I thought about it a little more. Mnisi was, after all, asking to be excused from attending court on Monday, which would be a recovery day and not race day itself. ALSO READ: 'This is what happens in a SA run by blacks': Senzo Meyiwa trial judge fires off explosive rant He said he was planning to drive back to Johannesburg after the race and, obviously, would not make it in time. Now, as an advocate who presumably gets paid a decent whack for his time, I ask; could he not have afforded to fly back to Gauteng, either late on Sunday night or early on Monday morning? As someone who has five Comrades marathons under my belt (although many years ago now), I do remember the post-race agony. That post-race agony for me, I remember, was made worse by hobbling down the aircraft steps at the then Jan Smuts airport on one occasion. That hobbling – everybody knew what it was caused by – was worn as a badge of honour, though. What an entrance to court it would have made had Mnisi got back in time and hobbled in on Monday morning and asked for the court's indulgence for his gait, by explaining to the judge that he had just travelled 90km on foot from Pietermaritzburg to Durban but that, while his legs may be hurting, his mind was ready for the fight… ALSO READ: Meyiwa trial becomes a courtroom spectacle without justice Completing the Comrades is, for all entrants, a triumph of mind over matter because human bodies are simply not made for that sort of effort. Will power and not muscle power gets you over the finish line. I do realise that many runners put their lives on hold for the first half of any given year in getting ready for the race. I know I did. Job, family, friends all took a back seat to joining the '100 Club' (100 miles, or 160km, in one training week). But I never missed a commitment – or ducked work – because I was a runner. If you can commit yourself to finishing the Annual Pilgrimage to the Shrine of Pain, surely you can suffer a little more discomfort on a recovery day to honour a professional appointment? The Comrades Marathon – the gruelling training, the arduous competition itself and the agony of recovery – is not for sissies. It's a quest you can't walk, or hobble, away from. Pretty much the same as life in general. NOW READ: 'No proper investigation was done': Defence frustrated over missing evidence in Senzo Meyiwa murder trial
Daily Maverick
2 days ago
- Daily Maverick
‘We are completely broken,' say parents of five-year-old killed in gang crossfire
Attending the trial of the two gangsters who killed their five-year-old son has been a sombre ritual for Patrick Kotze and Romana Grootetjie. Since May this year, members of the media have clustered in a courtroom of the Western Cape Division of the High Court in Cape Town, chronicling the trial of Jerome 'Donkey' Booysen. Alongside several alleged underworld kingpins, the notorious, alleged boss of the Sexy Boys gang is on trial for the murder of 'Steroid King' Brian Wainstein. Simultaneously, but unnoticed, a man and woman have been entering the court daily, arms entwined, as they make their way to an adjacent courtroom. This has been a sombre ritual for Patrick Kotze and Romana Grootetjie, the parents of five-year-old Valentino Romano, who was gunned down on 21 December 2019. Since mid-April, they have provided agonising testimony to the tragedy that unfolded in their backyard in Lavender Hill. And they have silently wept as the trial unfolded of two gangsters accused of murdering the little boy while in pursuit of rival gang members. The couple have winced while grisly details emerged of rival turf wars and the deadly consequences on children, especially their beloved Valentino. Yet each day, leading up to judgment, they have returned, hurting, but hopeful, to a room that is empty except for the judge, court officials, investigating officer, legal counsel and, of course, the accused. After a trial lasting several weeks, Carlo Hofmeester (aka 'Naruto') and Chadwin Isaacs (aka 'Water') were convicted on Thursday by Judge Melanie Holderness on 13 of 17 counts, including murder, attempted murder, contravening the Prevention of Organised Crime Act and possession of illegal firearms and ammunition. Both were acquitted on one of three firearms and ammunition counts and two counts of attempted murder. Sentence will be delivered on 11 June. Kotze and Grootetjie are satisfied with the multiple convictions and appreciate the support they received from advocate Leon Snyman and the investigating officer, Siyasanga Mapukata. 'It was the first time we had been in a courtroom. We felt so alone, and we didn't know what to do, or who to trust,' said Kotze. 'But we were strengthened by advocate Snyman, and Sergeant Mapukata fetched us for court and took us home every day. Through their support, we could stand tall and give truthful testimony.' Emotional The State's main witness, Kotze, had maintained his composure throughout the trial. However, after the verdict, he wept in the arms of Grootetjie. An equally emotional Grootetjie declared: 'Although we are grateful, we are completely broken. No parent should ever have to lose a child, especially like this. I shall make sure these gangsters never get out of prison to destroy any more young lives.' At around 2.15 pm on that tragic day, Valentino — the eldest of three siblings — was playing with his younger brother in the yard of the family's Wendy house, at 37 Drury Court in Lavender Hill. It is situated in 'turf' belonging to the Mongrels — one of Cape Town's most notorious street gangs. Corroborated by several witnesses, Kotze's testimony described a scene of confusion, terror and carnage. On 21 December 2019, the Mongrels had congregated nearby. Despite intermittent truces, they were constantly competing with a rival gang, the Fast Guns, for control of Lavender Hill's drug trade. Armed with guns and ammunition, the accused — members of the Fast Guns — were instructed by a senior gang member, John Dickson, to 'take out' a member of the Mongrels. In the ensuing gunfight, Wesley Kok, aka 'Salibom', a Mongrel gang member, was shot and wounded at Drury Court. Kotze testified that he saw Hofmeester — Accused No 1 — running towards him as he (Kotze) was returning from a shop. When Kotze reached the gate at 37 Drury Court, he warned the people inside and closed the gate. Hofmeester grabbed him. Kotze pulled loose and fled. Glancing back, he saw Hofmeester open the gate leading to 37 Drury Court, enter and shoot into the yard. Hofmeester then met Isaacs at a shop. Isaacs ran towards 37 Drury Court, opened the gate and shot into the yard. The two gang members also fired at other occupants of the premises as well as community members nearby. They then fled the scene, leaving Valentino fatally wounded. The suspects were arrested two days later, but during 2020, Dickson — the 'mastermind' — died in Pollsmoor Prison from a suspected heart attack. The trial was subsequently dogged by delays until April this year. Caught in the crossfire Valentino's murder and trial have been wrought with irony. The judgment comes in the middle of Child Protection Week and the commencement of Youth Month. Both commemorations serve as a stark indictment of the perils facing children, many of whom are caught in the crossfire of Cape Town's gang wars. 'It is shameful that during Child Protection Week and Youth Month, we have not stepped up as adults to protect our children,' said Lucinda Evans, of Philisa Abafazi Bethu, an emergency shelter for women and child victims of violence. According to the Western Cape Department of Health, between January and June 2024, 333 children were treated for firearm-related injuries at public health facilities. During the same period, 58 children — some as young as 12 months — were killed in shooting incidents. The child-body count continues, with new names added to the catalogue of carnage. The crisis has been described by community members across the Cape Flats as a form of urban terror, in which children are collateral damage in a madness not of their making. One such incident occurred in February 2025, when four-year-old Davin Africa was fatally shot while asleep in his home in Happiness Street, Wesbank, on Cape Town's periphery. This incident happened almost two years after his 12-year-old sister died, reportedly in gang crossfire. 'This is not a suitable environment for children, as they are not safe even in their own backyard,' said Romana Grootetjie. Adding perverse irony to tragedy, on the day that Valentino was murdered, the funeral of slain drug kingpin Rashied Staggie was held. No expense was spared for his celebrity send-off, while Valentino's destitute parents had to rely on donations to give their son a decent burial. Unable to afford relocation from Drury Court, they constantly relive the trauma, terror and unremitting grief of his murder. And although there was extensive press coverage of Valentino's murder, to date there has been no reportage of the trial. But Grootetjie and Kotze refuse to allow Valentino's memory to be muffled. They plan to marry on 22 June: Valentino's birthday. 'Our angel might not be here with us on our special day,' said Kotze. 'But we will celebrate his life, our love, and our hopes for the safety of our children.' DM
