Latest news with #MpumalangaHighCourt
The Citizen
a day ago
- The Citizen
Disbarment battle: Suspended Malalane attorney wins round in high court
Controversial suspended attorney Zietta Janse van Rensburg won a round in the Mpumalanga High Court today. As a result, the Legal Practice Council of South Africa (LPC) will only return to court on October 27 for its application to have her struck off the roll. Although the court ordered on April 29 that the hearing be set down for today (August 11), it also stated that a Form B had to be signed and filed at the registrar's office by May 12. The order stipulated that all issues had to be attended to before the hearing date as per Form B, Lowvelder reports. Form B is a prescribed document used as part of the judicial case management process, particularly under the practice directives that apply in various divisions of the high court. It serves to certify that the parties in a civil matter have complied with the court's requirements under case management rules and indicate that the matter is ready for trial. When the unopposed court roll was circulated on Monday, August 4, the LPC's case against Janse van Rensburg was not listed. Janse van Rensburg questions 'irregularities' In an email on August 5, Janse van Rensburg wrote to Thembeka Ratshibvumo, the LPC's legal representative. She said: This is a matter of grave concern. The matter is not on the roll and thus will not legitimately appear before court on 11 August 2025. I emphasise that you are dominus litis in this matter. It is not my prerogative to advise you of any irregularities.' Dominus litis is a Latin term meaning 'master of the suit' or 'owner of the lawsuit'. In a follow-up email, Janse van Rensburg expressed that enrolment can be an irregular process as per rules 30 and 30A and said there had been no compliance with the case management order. These rules relate to the handling of procedural irregularities or non-compliance with the rules in litigation before the high court. The case was, however, enrolled on a separate unopposed case roll sent out on Wednesday, August 6. Janse van Rensburg emailed the court before 08:00 today and informed them of her intention to deal with the judicial management order that was not complied with, as well as a supplementary affidavit she received on August 6. 'In my humble opinion, this matter is not court-ready.' The court informed her that the case would continue. Judge presses LPC on case directives Today's hearing was presided over by Mpumalanga Judge President Segopotje Sheila Mphahlele and Acting Judge Beauty Madavha. Janse van Rensburg represented herself. Mphahlele started proceedings by dealing with the previous court order and asked whether the order had been adhered to. Ratshibvumo addressed the court and said the LPC had written a letter to Janse van Rensburg on May 6 to engage on the matter, which was followed up with a letter to the office of the judge president, in which the LPC stated that Janse van Rensburg was not replying. 'Listen to what I'm saying. You requested her to sign Form B. The parties were directed to complete Form B. Our practice directive was to advise on what to do if there was no co-operation,' Mphahlele said. To this, Ratshibvumo said she accepted the judge's remarks and recommended that the matter be removed from the roll and re-enrolled on a later date. Janse van Rensburg agreed to the proposal and to comply with the Form B procedure. During the proceedings, Mphahlele asked Janse van Rensburg if she was going to apologise for not replying to the LPC's letter. 'I apologise, my lady. I also want to thank you for restoring discipline in this court.' Mphahlele ordered that the matter be removed from the roll, and it will now be heard on October 27, on condition that a duly signed Form B is filed by no later than September 30. The LPC and Janse van Rensburg agreed that she would submit all her court documents by Friday. Breaking news at your fingertips… Follow Caxton Network News on Facebook and join our WhatsApp channel. Nuus wat saakmaak. Volg Caxton Netwerk-nuus op Facebook en sluit aan by ons WhatsApp-kanaal. Read original story on
The Citizen
a day ago
- The Citizen
Disbarment battle: Suspended attorney wins round in high court
Controversial suspended attorney Zietta Janse van Rensburg won a round in the Mpumalanga High Court today. As a result, the Legal Practice Council of South Africa (LPC) will only return to court on October 27 for its application to have her struck off the roll. Although the court ordered on April 29 that the hearing be set down for today (August 11), it also stated that a Form B had to be signed and filed at the registrar's office by May 12. The order stipulated that all issues had to be attended to before the hearing date as per Form B. Form B is a prescribed document used as part of the judicial case management process, particularly under the practice directives that apply in various divisions of the high court. It serves to certify that the parties in a civil matter have complied with the court's requirements under case management rules and indicate that the matter is ready for trial. When the unopposed court roll was circulated on Monday, August 4, the LPC's case against Janse van Rensburg was not listed. Janse van Rensburg questions 'irregularities' In an email on August 5, Janse van Rensburg wrote to Thembeka Ratshibvumo, the LPC's legal representative. She said: This is a matter of grave concern. The matter is not on the roll and thus will not legitimately appear before court on 11 August 2025. I emphasise that you are dominus litis in this matter. It is not my prerogative to advise you of any irregularities.' Dominus litis is a Latin term meaning 'master of the suit' or 'owner of the lawsuit'. ALSO READ: Zietta's legal drama continues In a follow-up email, Janse van Rensburg expressed that enrolment can be an irregular process as per rules 30 and 30A and said there had been no compliance with the case management order. These rules relate to the handling of procedural irregularities or non-compliance with the rules in litigation before the high court. The case was, however, enrolled on a separate unopposed case roll sent out on Wednesday, August 6. Janse van Rensburg emailed the court before 08:00 today and informed them of her intention to deal with the judicial management order that was not complied with, as well as a supplementary affidavit she received on August 6. 'In my humble opinion, this matter is not court-ready.' The court informed her that the case would continue. Judge presses LPC on case directives Today's hearing was presided over by Mpumalanga Judge President Segopotje Sheila Mphahlele and Acting Judge Beauty Madavha. Janse van Rensburg represented herself. Mphahlele started proceedings by dealing with the previous court order and asked whether the order had been adhered to. Ratshibvumo addressed the court and said the LPC had written a letter to Janse van Rensburg on May 6 to engage on the matter, which was followed up with a letter to the office of the judge president, in which the LPC stated that Janse van Rensburg was not replying. 'Listen to what I'm saying. You requested her to sign Form B. The parties were directed to complete Form B. Our practice directive was to advise on what to do if there was no co-operation,' Mphahlele said. To this, Ratshibvumo said she accepted the judge's remarks and recommended that the matter be removed from the roll and re-enrolled on a later date. Janse van Rensburg agreed to the proposal and to comply with the Form B procedure. During the proceedings, Mphahlele asked Janse van Rensburg if she was going to apologise for not replying to the LPC's letter. 'I apologise, my lady. I also want to thank you for restoring discipline in this court.' Mphahlele ordered that the matter be removed from the roll, and it will now be heard on October 27, on condition that a duly signed Form B is filed by no later than September 30. The LPC and Janse van Rensburg agreed that she would submit all her court documents by Friday. ALSO READ: Suspended Malalane attorney challenges LPC ahead of April disbarment battle
The Citizen
4 days ago
- The Citizen
Woman awarded a million rand after being arrested while asking for water
The court found she was arrested despite there being no evidence linking her to a crime. A woman who was arrested and detained for more than a month after simply asking for water at a neighbour's home has been awarded R1.15 million in damages by the Mpumalanga High Court. Zethu Florence Mkhabela was arrested on 23 July 2020 when she visited Dumisani Mdluli's premises to ask for water. She spent 32 days in custody before being released on bail, only to have all charges eventually withdrawn due to lack of evidence. Judge AJ Shai found both the Minister of Police and the National Director of Public Prosecutions liable for unlawful arrest, detention and malicious prosecution in a judgment delivered on 6 August 2025. The water visit that led to arrest Mkhabela testified that her ordeal began innocently when she arrived at Mdluli's property seeking water. She said she found Mdluli with an unknown male on the premises. 'As she was there, some people arrived, spoke to Mdluli and went into the house with him. It was at this stage that the unknown male left the premises,' the judgment read. An argument later broke out between Mdluli and the visitors. It was then that Mkhabela realised items had been found in the house that were somehow linked to a crime. 'She was taken to various places with Mr Mdluli where items were pointed out and they were later taken to the police station where she was also detained. It was said that she committed housebreaking,' the judgment states. ALSO READ: Court chaos as diamond dealer Louis Liebenberg disrupts bail hearing Police admit no evidence linked Mkhabela to crime The case against the police was strengthened by their own witnesses' admissions. Constable Shiba, who detained Mkhabela, testified that she was brought to the station by community members. He then detained her 'so that further investigations could take place'. 'There was no evidence that plaintiff was involved in the burglary and that she was found in possession of any stolen items,' the court noted. The investigating officer confirmed this lack of evidence. 'There was no evidence in the docket linking the plaintiff to either the crime of housebreaking or possession of suspected stolen property,' the judgment reads. Prosecutor's questionable decision The prosecution's case proved equally problematic. Prosecutor Mrs Msimango testified that after reviewing the docket, she could not charge Mkhabela with housebreaking due to a lack of evidence. Instead, she incurred charges for possession of suspected stolen property. She reasoned that 'witnesses stated that plaintiff was found on the premises where the suspected stolen property was found'. The prosecutor later withdrew all charges, acknowledging insufficient evidence. The court found this deeply troubling. 'It boggles one's mind in understanding on what basis the prosecutrix decided on charging the plaintiff for possession of suspected stolen property.' ALSO READ: 19-year lease, no rent payment and R1.3m power bill: Businessman's battle with Gauteng municipality Court finds arrest and detention unlawful Shai ruled that the arrest violated Section 40(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which requires reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. 'It is as clear as daylight from Mr Shiba's testimony that the jurisdictional factors laid down in section 40(1)(b) have not been met,' the judgment reads. The judge emphasised that even lawful arrests require proper consideration of detention circumstances. 'Even where an arrest is lawful, a police officer must apply his mind to the arrestee's detention and the circumstances relating thereto. Failure by a police officer properly to do so is unlawful.' Extended detention after court appearance The court addressed the complex question of liability for post-court appearance detention, applying precedent from De Klerk v Minister of Police. Using the 'but-for' test, Shai determined that Mkhabela's extended detention resulted directly from the initial unlawful arrest. 'But for the unlawful arrest, the plaintiff could not have been detained and be further detained after the first court appearance,' Shai said. The court noted that any trained police officer should foresee that suspects unable to post bail face extended detention. ALSO READ: Farm murder accused says he was forced to feed women's bodies to pigs Malicious prosecution proven Shai found the prosecution malicious, noting the prosecutor's 'wanton disregard for facts not warranting prosecution'. The court applied the test from Beckenstrater v Rotter and Theunissen, requiring 'an honest belief founded on reasonable grounds that the institution of proceedings is justified'. The judge found that prosecutor Msimango lacked reasonable grounds. 'I cannot find that she genuinely believed that there was a reasonable and probable cause to proceed with the prosecution. 'Her decision to withdraw the charges should have been taken even before bringing the plaintiff to court,' Shai said. Personal impact and humiliation Mkhabela testified about the devastating personal consequences of her detention. She described humiliation in custody, inmates taking her food, inadequate toiletries and having to use T-shirts during menstruation. Beyond physical hardships, her reputation suffered lasting damage. 'Her good name is tainted in the community; her trade as a traditional leader had been affected as she is now labelled a criminal,' Shai said. Millions awarded for substantial damages Shai awarded damages totalling R1.15 million, broken down as follows: R250 000 for unlawful arrest; R150 000 for pre-court appearance detention; R650 000 for post-court appearance detention; and R100 000 for malicious prosecution. 'I have herein considered the circumstances of the arrest, the nature and duration of the detention and the fact that the charges were eventually withdrawn,' Shai said in justifying the substantial award. The court ordered the police minister to pay individually for the unlawful arrest and initial detention. However, both the minister and NDPP were held jointly liable for the extended post-court appearance detention. 'Both the second defendant's conduct caused the plaintiff's post-court appearance detention,' the judge ruled, finding that proper prosecutorial screening would have prevented the extended custody. The defendants were also ordered to pay legal costs, including counsel fees, on a party-and-party scale. READ NEXT: Four sentenced to life for murder of Alfred Duma municipality employee
The Citizen
5 days ago
- The Citizen
Video: Zippy or Zazu? Parrot custody dispute plays out in court
A bitter legal battle is unfolding over the custody of an African grey parrot being claimed by two passionate owners. Lowvelder reports that in one corner is prominent local lawyer Obert Ntuli, who insists the bird is his beloved 'Zippy'. In the other, Crystle Pachos, equally adamant that the feathered companion is her cherished boy, 'Zazu'. Ntuli won the latest round in the Mpumalanga High Court on July 22, when Pachos' urgent application to stop the enforcement of a March 2025 court order to hand over the parrot was dismissed due to lack of urgency. The conflict began on February 21, 2020, when Steiltes resident Pachos reported her bird missing. She launched a relentless social media campaign to recover Zazu, offering a R1 000 reward and posting almost daily pleas for assistance. Her search even involved an animal communicator and well-known tracker, Jaco Klopper, the owner of South African Bush Warrior Association, who confirmed his involvement to Lowvelder – but it was all in vain. She described Zazu as a 'playful bird with mood swings', emphasising their bond. 'Zazu will always stay my birdie boy. No matter what happens, he will always have a piece of my heart with him.' Hope was fading, but 14 months later, a breakthrough came. On May 10, 2021, a woman from Valencia in Mbombela contacted Pachos, claiming her father had received an African grey from a friend. After checking missing pet listings on local Facebook groups, she believed it might be Zazu. Pachos visited on May 12 and, according to an affidavit from the woman – later used in court – the bird 'showed immediate affection' toward her. A reunion video was shared online and an article published in Lowvelder celebrated Zazu's return. Pachos also located Garth Richardson, who had briefly possessed the bird. In a sworn statement, Richardson claimed to have found the parrot in his garden around May 5, 2021, and attempted to locate the rightful owner. On May 13, Pachos took Zazu to the vet to be microchipped. The same day, Ntuli's daughter posted that one of their African greys had gone missing two days prior. The bird, she said, had a foot band and was known to greet Ntuli in their home language. Her post featured videos of three African greys living with the family's toy pom dogs. Soon, Pachos and Ntuli started engaging in a tense WhatsApp exchange, each adamant the parrot was theirs. 'We are crying a river of tears,' Ntuli wrote. Pachos responded: 'It's not your bird. I hope you find yours.' With both living in the same area of Steiltes, the feud intensified. Their arguments grew increasingly hostile, with threats and insults flying back and forth. By early 2023, their communication cooled until Ntuli announced on March 2 that it was time to go to court. Court processes start Ntuli first turned to the Small Claims Court in July 2023, but the case was deemed too complex for its jurisdiction. On July 23, the bird was taken to Van Wijk Street Veterinary Hospital for a behavioural assessment by Dr Donnie Engelbrecht to determine its reaction to both parties. According to Engelbrecht's report, the bird reportedly responded poorly to Ntuli, retreating and becoming defensive. With Pachos, it 'displayed enthusiastic greeting behaviour', including somersaults, and showed strong willingness to interact with her. However, Engelbrecht concluded that interaction alone could not determine ownership. 'Bias and time lapsed skew behavioural observation,' he noted. In October 2024, the case was heard in the Mbombela District Court. Pachos' late filing meant it was heard unopposed. More controversy followed. Evidence presented by Ntuli showed Pachos had misrepresented the date the bird was microchipped. A vet's affidavit confirmed the microchipping took place in 2021, not 2019 as she had claimed. Further confusion concerned the bird's leg ring. Ntuli claimed the number on the bird's ring had been filed off. The vet said their records did not reflect whether the bird had a band, as recording leg band details was not standard practice unless explicitly requested by the owner. Pachos admitted to falsifying the microchip date, stating in an affidavit that continuous harassment led her to make 'an irrational error in judgment to create proof of ownership'. She apologised to both Ntuli and the vet, stating: 'My dreadful conduct does not detract from the fact that Zazu affectionately responds to me and not to Ntuli.' She denied tampering with the leg ring and submitted evidence from the bird's breeder, Martin Belo, who confirmed he sold Zazu to her in 2019 and that the ring matched his identification style. In March 2025, judgment was delivered in Ntuli's favour and the court ordered that the bird be returned to him. The court clarified it was not tasked with establishing true ownership, as this was beyond its jurisdiction. On March 10, Pachos filed a notice of appeal, arguing that the court erred by not addressing ownership more directly. She contended the case should have been treated as rei vindicatio (a property ownership claim), where the rightful owner, the existence of the property, and unlawful possession by the other party are central. Ntuli has since filed a cross-appeal and a court date has been set for October 2025. An urgent application on July 22, in the Mpumalanga High Court to halt the return of the bird, was not successful as urgency could not be established – and on July 25, Pachos had to hand Zazu over to Ntuli. 'I'm delighted to have Zippy back,' Ntuli told Lowvelder, proudly showing the bird in an open enclosure with two other African greys and several toy pom dogs. 'If it wasn't my bird, I wouldn't have taken it. Look how happy he is.' He added that all his parrots came from Montana Nursery. Pachos, however, remains heartbroken. 'I cannot accept the loss of Zazu,' she said. Her next legal step remains undetermined. The conclusion of Engelbrecht's report stands out: 'The only constructive recommendation would be to ultimately determine the best candidate for the bird's welfare.' Breaking news at your fingertips… Follow Caxton Network News on Facebook and join our WhatsApp channel. Nuus wat saakmaak. Volg Caxton Netwerk-nuus op Facebook en sluit aan by ons WhatsApp-kanaal. Read original story on
The Citizen
5 days ago
- The Citizen
WATCH: Polly-tics in Mbombela courtroom
A bitter legal battle is unfolding over the custody of an African Grey parrot being claimed by two passionate owners. In one corner: Prominent local lawyer Obert Ntuli, who insists the bird is his beloved 'Zippy'. In the other, Crystle Pachos, equally adamant that the feathered companion is her cherished boy, 'Zazu'. Ntuli won the latest round in the Mpumalanga High Court on July 22, when Pachos' urgent application to stop the enforcement of a March 2025 court order to hand over the parrot was dismissed due to lack of urgency. The conflict began on February 21, 2020, when Steiltes resident Pachos reported her bird missing. She launched a relentless social media campaign to recover Zazu, offering a R1 000 reward, and posting almost daily pleas for assistance. Her search even involved an animal communicator and well-known tracker, Jaco Klopper, the owner of South African Bush Warrior Association, who confirmed his involvement to Lowvelder – but it was all in vain. She described Zazu as a ''playful bird with mood swings', emphasising their bond. 'Zazu will always stay my birdie boy. No matter what happens, he will always have a piece of my heart with him.' Hope was fading, but 14 months later, a breakthrough came. On May 10, 2021, a woman from Valencia in Mbombela contacted Pachos, claiming her father had received an African grey from a friend. After checking missing pet listings on local Facebook groups, she believed it might be Zazu. Pachos visited on May 12, and, according to an affidavit from the woman, which was later used in court, the bird 'showed immediate affection' toward her. A reunion video was shared online and an article published in Lowvelder celebrated Zazu's return. ALSO READ: Zazu back home after more than a year Pachos also located Garth Richardson, who had briefly possessed the bird. In a sworn statement from Richardson, he claims to have found the parrot in his garden around May 5, 2021, and attempted to locate the rightful owner. On May 13, Pachos took Zazu to the vet to be microchipped. The same day, Ntuli's daughter posted that one of their African greys had gone missing two days prior. The bird, she said, had a foot band and was known to greet Ntuli in their home language. Her post featured videos of three African greys living with the family's toy pom dogs. Soon, Pachos and Obert Ntuli started engaging in a tense WhatsApp exchange, each adamant the parrot was theirs. 'We are crying a river of tears,' Ntuli wrote. Pachos responded: 'It's not your bird. I hope you find yours.' With both living in the same area of Steiltes, the feud intensified. Their arguments grew increasingly hostile, with threats and insults flying back and forth. By early 2023, their communication cooled down, until Ntuli announced on March 2 that it was time to go to court. Court processes start Ntuli first turned to the Small Claims Court in July 2023, but the case was deemed too complex for the court's jurisdiction. On July 23, the bird was taken to Van Wijk Street Veterinary Hospital for a behavioural assessment by Dr Donnie Engelbrecht to determine its reaction to both parties. According to a report from Engelbrecht, the bird reportedly responded poorly to Ntuli, retreating and becoming defensive. With Pachos, it 'displayed enthusiastic greeting behaviour', including somersaults and showed strong willingness to interact with her. However, Engelbrecht concluded that interaction alone could not determine ownership. 'Bias and time lapsed skew behavioural observation,' he noted. In October 2024, the case was heard in the Mbombela District Court. Pachos' late filing meant it was heard unopposed. More controversy followed. Evidence presented by Ntuli showed Pachos had misrepresented the date the bird was microchipped. A vet's affidavit confirmed the microchipping took place in 2021, not 2019 as she had claimed. Further confusion concerned the bird's leg ring. Ntuli claimed the number on the bird's ring had been filed off. The vet said their records did not reflect whether the bird had a band, as recording the details of leg bands wasn't standard practice unless explicitly requested by the owner. Pachos admitted to falsifying the microchip date, stating in an affidavit that continuous harassment led her to make 'an irrational error in judgment to create proof of ownership'. She apologised to both Ntuli and the vet, stating: 'My dreadful conduct does not detract from the fact that Zazu affectionately responds to me and not to Ntuli.' She denied tampering with the leg ring and submitted evidence from the bird's breeder, Martin Belo, who confirmed he sold Zazu to her in 2019 and that the ring matched his identification style. In March 2025, judgment was delivered in Ntuli's favour and the court ordered that the bird be returned to him. Importantly, the court clarified it was not tasked with establishing true ownership, as this was beyond its jurisdiction. On March 10, Pachos filed a notice of appeal, arguing that the court erred by not addressing ownership more directly. She contended the case should have been treated as rei vindicatio (a property ownership claim), where the rightful owner, the existence of the property, and unlawful possession by the other party are central. Ntuli has since filed a cross-appeal and a court date has been set for October 2025. An urgent application on July 22, 2025, in the Mpumalanga High Court to halt the return of the bird was not successful as urgency could not be established – and on July 25, Pachos had to hand Zazu over to Ntuli. 'I'm delighted to have Zippy back,' Ntuli told Lowvelder, proudly showing the bird in an open enclosure with two other African greys and several toy pom dogs. 'If it wasn't my bird, I wouldn't have taken it. Look how happy he is.' He added that all his parrots came from Montana Nursery. Pachos, however, remains heartbroken. 'I cannot accept the loss of Zazu,' she said. Her next legal step remains undetermined. The conclusion of Engelbrecht's report stands out: 'The only constructive recommendation would be to ultimately determine the best candidate for the bird's welfare.'
