Home | News | EX-WIFE TAKES FORMER ERS BOSS MASILELA TO COURT

EX-WIFE TAKES FORMER ERS BOSS MASILELA TO COURT

Font size: Decrease font Enlarge font

MBABANE – Former ERS  Commissioner General Dumisani Masilela has been taken to court by his former wife, after he allegedly refused  to pay her a sum of E250 000 despite a court order.

Masilela recently left the Eswatini Revenue Service (ERS) to join the International Monetary Fund (IMF). His former wife, Simangele Kalua Mwanza, wants the court to direct him to forthwith pay to her a sum of E250 000, in compliance with a divorce settlement agreement which was allegedly concluded between the parties on May 14, 2018. Mwanza is further praying for an order directing the respondent (Masilela) to forthwith sign all documents necessary for the transfer and registration of a motor vehicle from his name to hers.

Married

In her application, the applicant narrated to the court that they were married in community of property in Manzini on November 29, 1996.  She submitted that the marriage subsisted until May 16, 2018 when same was dissolved by a decree of divorce. Mwanza told the court that the grounds and facts leading to the divorce were not relevant for the determination of this application.   She averred that the divorce decree was a sequel of a divorce settlement agreement they allegedly concluded and executed on May 14, 2018. According to the applicant, the salient terms of the divorce settlement agreement was that it would be issued subject to certain terms.  She brought it to the attention of the court that in terms of the agreement, Masilela was to pay her a sum of E250 000.

Mwanza alleged that the aforementioned amount was her reasonable share of the value of the matrimonial home situated at Eveni in Mbabane, which was to be retained by the respondent after their divorce. She alleged that payment of this amount was to be made to her erstwhile attorneys, NDZ Ngcamphalala Attorneys. As part of the agreement, according to Mwanza, she was to retain two motor vehicles, which formed part of their joint marital properties; a Toyota Fortuner and an Isuzu KB.  She alleged that Masilela covenanted to process within a reasonable time, transfer and change of ownership of these vehicles to her name.

The applicant further stated that the agreement was made an order of the court. “Notwithstanding the lapse of a reasonable period from the date of the  divorce settlement agreement and the issuance of the court order, the respondent has to date failed and refused to pay the aforesaid sum of E250 000 or a lesser amount at all,” submitted the applicant. She argued that in the circumstances, the respondent was truly indebted to her in the sum of E250 000. Mwanza alleged that despite demand, the respondent refused to pay her the sum of E250 000.

Cavalier

“To exhibit the respondent’s mala fides and cavalier attitude towards his legal obligations in terms of the divorce settlement agreement, he has refused to effect transfer of ownership or registration of the Isuzu KB motor vehicle onto my name. It was further the applicant’s submission that her former husband only effected transfer of ownership or registration of the Toyota Fortuner onto her name on January 25, 2022, despite that he was obligated to do so within a reasonable time from May 16, 2018.  She said this was after she solicited assistance from a deputy sheriff, pursuant to the respondent’s refusal to accede to her demands. These are allegations whose veracity is still to be tested in court and Masilela is yet to respond.

Mwanza contended that as a penalty for his alleged unbecoming behaviour, the respondent ought to be mulcted with costs as a punitive scale. “The respondent’s continued failure and refusal to honour his contractual obligation is a serious violation of an order of the court, whose conduct is untenable. The court, which has a duty to guard against violations of its orders, must therefore exhibit its approval of the respondent’s conduct through an order for costs at attorney own client scale,” she argued. Mwanza argued that she had been candid and civil towards her former husband and he offered her to purge his default in vain.

Hoodwinking

She alleged that instead, the respondent through his attorneys, made empty promises to settle and thus hoodwinking and delaying the process. “The respondent is a civilised person. By virtue of his previous position at the Eswatini Revenue Service, he ought to know better the sanctity of the rule of law principle and obeying court orders which he violated with impunity. Therefore, his misconduct herein deserves condemnation through an adverse costs order at a punitive scale,” submitted the applicant. The applicant is represented by Lucky Manyatsi of Manyatsi and Associates, while appearing for the respondent are attorneys from Howe Masuku Nsibande Attorneys. The matter is pending before Acting Mbabane Principal Magistrate Sifiso Vilakati.

Comments (0 posted):

Post your comment comment

Please enter the code you see in the image:

: DISPOSABLE NAPPIES
Should government suspend the use of disposable nappies?