Latest news with #JohannesburgHighCourt
The South African
6 days ago
- Entertainment
- The South African
'Haven't spoken to my children in almost two weeks': Denise Zimba
Actress and TV presenter Denise Zimba has opened up once again about the heartbreaking ordeal of losing custody of her two daughters. The actress has been involved in a custody dispute with her estranged husband, Jakob Schlichtig, and the court ruled in his favour. Taking to her X account, the actress revealed she hadn't spoken to her children in almost two weeks and expressed deep regret over her past actions that led to the situation. 'I haven't spoken to my children in almost two weeks. My biggest regret is choosing wrong and having my children live with the consequences of my actions.' Her followers flooded the comments section with messages of support and comfort. In March, the former Vuzu star lost custody of her two children to her estranged husband, Jakob Schlichtig. According to Women For Change, the Johannesburg High Court ruled on Friday, 7 March, in favour of Schlichtig, granting him permission to take the children back to Germany. The organisation also claimed that court documents stated the girls would suffer emotional distress without their father. Furthermore, it stated that Zimba and Schlichtig had returned to South Africa after welcoming their second child. Due to marital problems, Zimba remained in their Cape Town home while Schlichtig went back to Germany. He later initiated a Hague Convention case, alleging that she unlawfully kept the children. Before this, the actress had spoken out about the alleged infidelity in her marriage. She accused him of cheating on her with her best friend from childhood in a series of explosive tweets. DO YOU THINK DENISE WILL EVER LIVE WITH HER CHILDREN? Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1 . Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp , Facebook , X, and Bluesky for the latest news.
IOL News
6 days ago
- Entertainment
- IOL News
Denise Zimba's heartfelt confession on X: 'My children are living with the consequences of my actions'
Denise Zimba with her two girls. Image: Instagram/ Denise Zimba South African entertainer Denise Zimba is living every mother's worst fear of being separated from her children. Zimba, celebrated for her electrifying presence in South Africa's entertainment industry, is now at the centre of a heartbreaking custody battle, a fight that has left her questioning her choices, her strength, and her faith. Beyond the glitz and glamour, she's just a mother fighting to keep her children close, and her story has sparked widespread outrage and empathy. 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 ✕ Haven't spoken to my children in almost two weeks… my biggest regret is choosing wrong and having my children live with the consequences of my actions … 😪 — Denise Zimba (@MissDeniseZimba) May 28, 2025 In an emotional thread on X (formerly Twitter), Zimba revealed she hasn't spoken to her daughters in nearly two weeks, sparking public outcry and raising urgent questions about the rights of mothers in international custody cases. In happier times, South African media personality Denise Zimba with her husband, Jakob Schlichtig. Picture: X. Image: Picture: X 'My biggest regret is choosing wrong, and having my children live with the consequences of my actions…' Zimba wrote. Besides her husband's infertility, court documents revealed that Zimba suffered greatly from his lack of support in raising their kids. Emotional thread on X (formerly Twitter), Zimba revealed she hasn't spoken to her daughters in nearly two weeks Image: Denise Zimba/X This gut-wrenching message offers a glimpse into the emotional turmoil Zimba is experiencing as she navigates the fallout of her marriage to Schlichtig, whom she wed in April 2022. She added, "Haven't spoken to my children in almost two weeks... my biggest regret is choosing wrong and having my children live with the consequences of my actions.' The 36-year-old actress, TV presenter, and mother of two has been open about her ongoing custody battle with her estranged German husband, Jakob Schlichtig, after the Johannesburg High Court permitted him to take their children back to Germany earlier this year. A move that blindsided many of her and ignited debate around parental rights, justice, and maternal mental health. However, their relationship deteriorated due to alleged infidelity and neglect. According to "Sunday World", she left the marriage after enduring repeated betrayals and carrying the burden of parenthood alone. Renowned media personality has recently celebrated her 36th birthday. Image: Picture: X. The ruling has led to her daughters living thousands of kilometres away, without daily access to their mother, a reality Zimba says has deeply affected their well-being. 'SA courts handed my SA citizen babies 2 Germany without their mother after I endured abuse. 2 months in without being 2getha … Can the organisation my estranged husband works 4 kindly assist, since u support such injustice, especially towards mothers & children, Africans at that!' She adds, 'No one cares about the mother's sacrifice, her life-threatening experiences. His lawyer was female. The judge was female. Even the doctor and his sister, all women, helped him take my babies away from me,' she posted in a now-viral thread. Zimba's story has struck a nerve with many South African parents, especially mothers, who understand the invisible labour and sacrifices women make often without recognition. The heartbreak isn't just hers; it's a mirror for thousands of women whose contributions are too often erased in legal systems that prioritise procedure over the emotional and physical bonds between mother and child.
IOL News
7 days ago
- Business
- IOL News
From R200 to redemption: Soweto woman wins back home after 20-year battle with Standard Bank
After a two-decade long battle, a Soweto woman has finally got her home back Image: Standard Bank/Facebook After fighting for 20 years, a woman from Soweto has finally regained ownership of her home, where she had lived for 23 years. The house was unlawfully auctioned by Standard Bank and bought by the bank itself for just R200. It was then sold to another buyer, who later obtained a court order to evict her. This happened despite Mogudi Batsile Mosai not having signed anything – as was meant to be the case under the law – nor having received eviction papers or being aware of the eviction. In fact, her family was so in the dark as to what was going on, they even improved the property. The lengthy court matter went on for so many years until landing up in the Johannesburg High Court to finally be settled that Mogudi's husband died, she managed to get to the point where she went from studying a Masters degree (although not in law) to being accepted for a PhD on a bursary, running out of money because of her husband's medical bills, and the law and other lawyers being of no use. Mogudi, who was married to the now deceased Meshack Mogudi who died in 2013, likely due to and was a beneficiary and executor of his will, took Standard Bank to court because she wanted to reverse judgements that saw her home, which she had been living in for 23 years, sold out from under her feet and her and her children evicted. Meshack died in 2013, likely due to kidney failure, and his hospital bills for dialysis ran to some R20 000, even though the couple relied on government treatment. In July 1991, Meshack acquired a grant of leasehold from the Soweto City Council, which preceded him mortgaging the property to Standard Bank to fund a business venture. However, Mogudi didn't sign any papers, which the bank not only admits, but is also in contravention of some sections of the Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984. This law states that one spouse in a marriage in community of property cannot, among other things, mortgage any immovable property without their partner's signature – a clause that extends to houses. Whether the Mosais were married under this regime was a matter of some dispute, although Standard Bank conceded that the couple were married in community of property, with 'the usual consequences of such a marriage setting in,' the decision stated. In the ruling, the judge, as a side note, said that 'although nowadays academic, it should be remembered that during the apartheid regime a marriage between a black woman and a black man was taken to be out of community of property unless the parties made a declaration to the contrary to the marriage officer at least a month prior to the marriage itself'. Unfortunately, Meshack's business failed, and he fell behind on payments, which led to default judgment being granted against him in 1993 for payment of R109 011.49, interest on that amount at 16% a year from November 1993 until he settled the outstanding amount, as well as that the house could be sold to defray Meshack's liabilities in terms of the court order. The annual interest rate for the full year was 15.5% in 1993. What is key, however, as Acting Judge S van Nieuwenhuizen pointed out, was that Mogudi said that neither she nor Meshack received summons. 'The executrix [Mogudi] is adamant if it was served on the deceased she would have been made aware thereof. She also annexes a copy of the Sheriff's return of service which asserts that the summons was served on Mrs Lethollo, a person who is unknown to her. What followed was Standard Bank buying the property at auction for what the Judge called a 'paltry amount of R200'. This, said Van Nieuwenhuizen, was 'an unhealthy practice which was particularly rife amongst banks at the time,' even though the interim Constitution had come into effect. Neither of the Mosais were aware that the property had been sold to Standard Bank for a measly R200, so they carried on living there. In 2001, Servcon Housing Solutions – which the Judge said was 'purporting to act on behalf of the bank' asked Mogudi to sign a lease agreement, which she did after consulting with her husband, who was in Kenya. The judgement indicated that Mogudi was 'unaware of the significance of the document'. However, she received a letter indicating that Standard Bank accepted the rental at R904 a month, and she was also provided with a copy of the lease agreement. Mogudi argued that, as long as they continued to pay this amount, the property would remain theirs – although there were arguments before the Judge that she wasn't illiterate and should have known that there was something 'amiss' especially as, by 2007, she was studying towards a master's degree in chemistry. Yet, the Judge said that her studies didn't mean that she understood the law, and 'I have no reason to suspect that she had any comprehension of [her] legal position,' under several Acts, said Van Nieuwenhuizen. This was the case until she and her husband were advised by Fluxmans attorneys about their legal rights in 2007. Even though they were renting, they fixed the property up, spending R100 000 and the value of the property increased to around R450 000. The bank disputes these improvements in the absence of documentation, read the ruling. And then, without Mogudi's knowledge, the house was sold out from under her feet for R50 000 and then the new owner managed to, in November 2007, get the couple evicted. This is when they went to Fluxmans, which sought to halt the eviction until they could act against the bank. The application was struck down because that judge didn't view it as urgent. Then, before Meshack died, the new owner tried to confirm the validity of the eviction order, while the couple could no longer afford Fluxmans, and their new attorney who vanished, and other attorneys couldn't deal with the matter because it was complicated and complex. Even the Constitutional Court and the Public Protector were of no use as she was ignored even though Mogudi had supplied contact details. 'She and the deceased were never referred to pro bono organisations or legal aid clinics,' stated Van Nieuwenhuizen. By the time the matter got to the Johannesburg High Court, Mogudi was studying towards a PhD on a bursary and as a part-time tutor, while two of her children were also studying. Only her daughter was in full-time employment and, in addition to the sparsity of income, the family was also supporting a grandchild and an unemployed son. The judge ruled that Mogudi was entitled to get the property back from its new owner and that it can be treated as part of Meshack's estate, which means, as he had no will, it goes to the Mosai family. IOL
The Citizen
7 days ago
- Business
- The Citizen
Standard Bank slammed in court after repossessing and auctioning Soweto home for R200
1992 property loan sparks 30-year fight. The property was acquired in 1991, repossessed and sold at auction in 1994 – then sold by the bank for R50 000 in 2002. Picture: iStock The Johannesburg High Court last week overturned a 1994 judgment in favour of Standard Bank resulting in a three-decade battle between the bank and Soweto homeowner Mogudi Mosai. Among several bizarre features of this case is that the home was repossessed by the bank in 1994 over alleged arrears of R109 000 and then sold at auction for R200 – 'which has all the makings of a simulated transaction', declared Judge Van Nieuwenhuizen. Sales of homes for such paltry amounts were 'an unhealthy practice which was particularly rife amongst banks at the time'. This despite constitutional protections already in place against arbitrary deprivation of property. 'The bank provided no explanation at all for this abuse which resulted in [Mosai's] right to the surplus after payment of the judgment debt being destroyed,' reads the judgment. 'It is no excuse to say that it no longer has any files relating to the [sale in] execution.' ALSO READ: Smackdown for Standard Bank in home repo case Long road to justice The story goes back to 1982 and covers a particularly dark period in South African history when a marriage between a black woman and a black man was assumed to be out of community of property unless a declaration to the contrary was made at least one month prior to the marriage. Mosai was married to the late Howard Mogudi in 1982, and this apartheid-era confusion as to the status of the marriage formed a central pillar of the case. It was eventually conceded by the bank that they were married in community of property, in which case any legal actions would have to cite both as respondents. However, this did not happen. The couple acquired a leasehold property in Orlando West in Soweto in 1991 and then mortgaged the property to the bank to fund a business venture. The fact that Mosai did not sign any bond or transfer documents despite the marriage in community of property contravened the Matrimonial Property Act, which requires both spouses to be involved in such decisions. The business venture ultimately failed, and the couple fell into arrears. Standard Bank issued summons in November 1993 for the claimed arrears of R109 000. Mosai says neither she nor her late husband received any summons from the bank. The sheriff's 'return of service' notice shows the summons appears to have been served on a Mrs Lethollo, who was unknown to Mosai. The bank obtained judgment against the couple and proceeded to sell the property at auction for R200 in September 1994. Mosai and her husband were completely unaware that their property had been sold. They continued to live undisturbed in the house until 2001, when Servcon Housing Solutions – purporting to be acting on behalf of the bank – approached Mosai and asked her to sign a lease agreement for the property. Her husband was away in Kenya at the time, and advised her to sign the document though she was unaware of its significance. The lease agreement required payment of R904 in monthly rentals. They paid the monthly rentals and made improvements to the house, which increased in value to R450 000. In 2002, the bank sold the property for R50 000 to Tshenolo Monaapula, who appears to have worked for the South African Reserve Bank and had bought other properties under similar circumstances. ALSO READ: Court rules in favour of clients in Standard Bank home loan dispute Eviction The property was transferred in 2004 into the new buyer's name, and she commenced eviction proceedings against Mosai and her husband. The couple were evicted from their home in 2005, but raised funds to mount a legal defence and managed to retain possession of the property pending finalisation of the matter. In her court papers, Mosai says her husband – who passed away in 2013 – only became aware in December 2001 that the bank had purchased the property in 1994. Mosai was subsequently appointed executrix of her late husband's estate. It was only in 2007 after consulting with law firm Fluxman's that the couple discovered the Servcon lease agreement was still in force and had not been cancelled. Mosai argued that she was not in wilful default of the loan from the bank, and that the judgment against her was 'erroneously sought and granted' and was irregular in that she was not cited by the bank as co-owner of the property. ALSO READ: Gauteng man takes Absa to court over alleged unlawful car repossession 'No records' The judgment reads: 'The bank has no records pertaining to the execution of the judgment given that the executrix waited 21 years to launch the present application or at least 14 years after the sale came to her knowledge on 6 December 2001. It in any event states that the sheriff would not have proceeded with the sale in execution in 1994 had there been any defects in the execution process. No explanation is proffered for the paltry price paid by the bank for the property.' Mosai was under the impression that once the debt to the bank had been discharged the property would be transferred back to the couple. The judgment goes into some detail on the parlous position of married black couples under apartheid. 'Banks are in the business of granting loans secured by bonds. By 1993 the repressive apartheid regime was in its dying days and black persons were in the position of acquiring an interest in land in black townships and ultimately ownership. A bank which wanted to enter this market was in my view obliged to acquaint itself with the pitfalls of entering into mortgage bonds with black persons and should have made enquiries as to the true status of such a person's marriage.' The judge goes on to say: 'Given the paltry purchase price paid I have serious doubts as to whether the bank was a bona fide purchaser and could ever have passed ownership to Ms Tshenolo [who bought the property at auction]. Despite that there is in my view insufficient evidence to find that it was a simulated transaction or an abuse of process.' The original 1994 judgment was rescinded and set aside and Mosai declared the lawful owner of the property pending the finalisation of her husband's estate. Costs were awarded against the bank. ALSO READ: FNB home repossession goes horribly wrong Homeowners 'still subjected to abusive foreclosure' 'It's [a] case of the chickens coming home to roost where past practices come back to bite,' says consumer legal advisor Leonard Benjamin. 'However, it would be a mistake to think that this is indicative of a bygone era,' he adds. 'Whilst there has certainly been many developments in the law which should protect the poor and the vulnerable, in reality, homeowners are still subjected to abusive foreclosure practices. 'The banks should learn a lesson from matters of this nature. While it may take decades, eventually their practices catch up with them.' This article was republished from Moneyweb. Read the original here.
Eyewitness News
27-05-2025
- Eyewitness News
Trial date set for the alleged rapist and murderer of a 6-year-old Soweto girl
JOHANNESBURG - A trial date has been set for Pethe Sara Simiao, the man accused of raping and murdering a six-year-old girl in Soweto. The 24-year-old Mozambican national was arrested in October last year, after the body of six-year-old Amantle Samane was found inside his shack in Orlando, Soweto. READ: Amantle Samane murder-accused due back in court After several appearances at the Protea Magistrates Court, his matter was transferred to the Johannesburg High Court where he now faces four charges, including kidnapping, murder, rape, and contravening the Immigration Act. During the early stages of the case, Simiao abandoned his bid for bail after the State indicated it would strongly oppose his release due to his undocumented status in South Africa. He appeared in court on Tuesday to wrap up his pre-trial hearing, looking dishevelled and keeping his head hung low. Usually, this stage allows accused persons to plead guilty or not guilty. But Simiao has only indicated an intention to plead guilty to one count, relating to immigration violations. The court heard that formal pleas would be entered at the start of the trial. "Now this matter has been postponed for plea and trial to the 31st of July 2025. The estimated duration for this trial is to the 8th of August 2025." Simiao will remain in custody until his next court appearance.
