Home | News | EX-ASSISTANT MASTER IMPLICATED IN ANOTHER ESTATE

EX-ASSISTANT MASTER IMPLICATED IN ANOTHER ESTATE

15/05/2024 11:31:00 Siboniso Nkambule

Font size:

MBABANE - As the investigation into the alleged impropriety, maladministration, and abuse of power at the Master of the High Court Office continues, the name of the former Assistant Master, Khanyisile Masilela, has again come up.

This time around, Masilela, who is now the Deputy Registrar at the High Court, allegedly facilitated the transfer of a plot belonging to the late Edward Thulani Silindza, purchased for a sum of E50 000, but the money was unaccounted for. It was alleged that there was no trace that the money was ever sent to the estate’s account, yet Masilela signed off the transfer of the plot to the buyer, Michael Mahlalela. This was revealed during the Judicial Commission of Inquiry session yesterday. The allegation’s veracity is yet to be tested as the implicated parties are still to present their side of the story. The mother of Silindza’s two children, Jabulile Tsabedze, and Silindza’s son, Bongiswa, appeared before the commission, where they alleged that they were sidelined on the estate.

Knowledge

They also alleged that the plot, which is located at Nkwalini Zone 4, was sold without their knowledge. Silindza died in 2012 and was not married. Tsabedze testified before the commission that she learned that the estate was reported to the Master’s Office, through the Mbabane Municipal Council. According to Tsabedze, they were told that the plot had been sold and they should enquire at the Master’s Office. She said the municipal council officials allegedly told her that they did not know who opened the estate file at the Master’s Office and that the plot had been sold. Tsabedze told the commission that the plot was vacant at the time of Silindza’s demise, and they wanted to build their home to stay with the children.“To my knowledge, the plot was under Silindza’s name, but without our knowledge, it was sold and we don’t know how much it was sold for. The municipal council told us to go to the Master’s Office for answers,” Tsabedze alleged.

Enquired

Adding, she said when they enquired at the Master’s Office, they learned that the plot was allegedly sold in 2020 and bought by Mahlalela. Tsabedze told the commission that there was no explanation as to why the plot was sold and who benefited from the proceeds. She said they wanted the plot back, so that Silindza’s children could benefit. In the same vein, she revealed that she allegedly received only E600 as maintenance. On the other hand, Bongiswa alleged that his uncle, Bongani Silindza, who was appointed as the executor, took everything.
He testified that Bongani allegedly told the Master’s Office, that his father had no children.

He also alleged that his uncle and his grandmother knew about their existence, but chose to lie at the Master’s Office. On the contrary, Assistant Master George Langa said when Silindza passed on; his death notification was registered by Bongani. Langa said Bongani recorded that the deceased had no children. According to Langa, Bongani also registered Silindza’s inventory, where he named the plot at Nkwalini as an asset. He told the commission that a family meeting was called in 2020, attended by the Master’s Office, Silindza’s mother, Mahlalela who was Silindza’s creditor at that time, Bongani and another creditor. He shared with the commission that Silindza allegedly owed Mahlalela a sum of E15 000 and he died without settling the fee. Adding, the assistant master said Mahlalela was also appointed as the executor of the estate.

Evaluation

Langa revealed to the commission that Bongani and his mother sold the plot to Mahlalela for E65 000 as per the evaluation by the municipal council. “The family was supposed to get E50 000 from Mahlalela for the sale of the plot, minus the E15 000 owed to him. There is an affidavit signed by Silindza’s mother and his brother, which states that they gave Mahlalela the plot, because he paid for it, while Silindza was alive. What then followed was the distribution and liquidation account prepared by the executor,” Langa said. He went on to state that, the distribution account, doesn’t show if the E50 000 was ever paid and how it was distributed.

On the same note, he testified that the executor allegedly prepared the distribution account and the Master’s Office approved it. Furthermore, he said the executor also wrote in the account that there was no cash available for distribution, but the plot was signed off and transferred. “Basically, there is no sign of the E50 000. The only thing I have seen is the executor’s claim.
“There is no evidence to say that Mahlalela was owed the said amount,” he alleged. The commission asked Langa to provide the name of the Master’s Office official who signed off the transfer of the plot. Langa politely answered to say, Masilela was allegedly behind the transfer.

When asked about the money, and if it benefitted Silindza’s children, he responded by saying, there was no trace that the money was paid into the estate account, but Masilela wrote a letter to the municipal council, endorsing the transfer of the plot to Mahlalela. “The letter was written on the strength of the estate distribution and liquidation account. Masilela granted the transfer of the plot and further signed the letter,” he alleged.

Letter

Reading Masilela’s letter, Langa said: “The Office of the Master of the High Court is in the process of winding up the above-mentioned estate. You are hereby granted authority to transfer the plot from the deceased name to the claimant Michael Mahlalela.” The assistant master further emphasised to the commission that there was no evidence substantiating that Mahlalela and the other creditor were owed anything. “Even in the minutes presented here, there is no evidence. We also tried calling Mahlalela to get more information but he was not picking up his phone. “In the file, there are no clear answers as to how the file was handled,” Langa alleged.

The commission said there was a need to call all the people who were involved in the estate, to bring clarity on the matter. The commission noted that there was too much confusion about the purported events, and the implicated parties were the only ones to provide clarity about the estate.