‘MAJOR V’, EX-WIFE IN HOME SALE COURT BATTLE

MANZINI – Liqoqo member and Prophet, Vusumuzi ‘Major V’ Dlamini is embroiled in a dispute with his former wife over their home.

On Monday, his wife, Simangele Portia Dlamini (née Hlophe), applied for an order to interdict and restrain the Liqoqo member from interfering with her rights of possession, ownership and control of their home, including the buildings situated along Matsapha Airport Road in the Manzini Region. She specifically sought to prevent him from blocking her access to and occupation of the property. The clergyman had reportedly locked their home after it was claimed that his former wife wished to sell it.

Simangele is the first applicant in this matter, with Bongani Dlamini as the second applicant. Bongani expressed his desire to buy and/or take full ownership, occupation and control of the home. The clergyman, the national commissioner of police and the attorney general, are the first, second and third respondents, respectively. Simangele is the plaintiff, while the Liqoqo member is the defendant. Major V is represented by Phakathi Jele Attorneys, while Simangele has engaged the services of SM Simelane & Co. The matter was heard by Manzini Acting Magistrate Mongezi Mciza; however, the application was unsuccessful.

Unhindered

“The first respondent be ordered and directed forthwith to unlock the entrance gate into the above-mentioned property and to thereafter desist from locking the gate going forward,” part of the plaintiff’s application reads.The application further noted that if the Liqoqo member fails to unlock the access gate and allow the applicant unhindered access to the home, a messenger of the court for the Manzini Region, assisted by the second respondent, would be directed to break the padlock and chain he had used to secure the gate and to take all necessary actions to grant the applicant access to the premises for the purpose of occupation.

Additionally, the application stated that the costs of this application at the attorney-own-client scale are to be paid by the first respondent. In her founding affidavit, Simangele submitted that the second applicant, Bongani, an adult male liSwati from the Lubombo Region, also has a direct and substantial interest in this litigation. “This honourable court has the necessary jurisdiction to hear and determine this application, because the relief sought (interdict and directory orders) arises from matrimonial (divorce) proceedings which commenced in this court and were finalised herein, hence it is the appropriate forum,” she stated.

She mentioned that on August 5, 2024, the court issued a divorce order between her and the clergyman, which included final and binding terms, stating that the defendant (Vusumuzi Brother Dlamini) forfeits all matrimonial property and privileges arising from the marriage and within the joint estate. Simangele elaborated that on August 14, 2024, at 7:03am, the first respondent was served with the final decree of divorce by court messenger Bongani Zikalala, as indicated in annexure PH2.

Applicants

“In fact, the first respondent became aware of the court order, especially the forfeiture term of the divorce. He has done nothing about it up to today,” she claimed.On the other hand, the Liqoqo Council member opposed the application. In his notice to raise points of law, he stated that despite the applicants acknowledging that the home in question is situated on Eswatini Nation Land(ENL), they had failed to include the Masundvwini Royal Kraal in the matter, which has a direct and substantial interest. He highlighted that the royal kraal oversees the land on which the home is located.

“I assert that the Masundvwini Committee has a substantial interest in the outcome of these proceedings, and the failure to cite and serve the committee constitutes a fatal non-joinder. Disputes involving the home are ordinarily within the jurisdiction of that committee,” he stated. The clergyman further argued that the second applicant was wrongfully included in these proceedings. “He has no interest in the home in question, as the land was allocated to the first applicant and me, and any matters concerning it should only involve the two of us before those who allocated the land to us. I therefore argue that his interest is contrived,” he contended.

Additionally, the Liqoqo member argued that the court lacks the necessary jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter, because the property is situated on ENL. He stated that proprietary rights concerning land on ENL are dealt with under Swazi Law and Custom, by the relevant traditional structures, in this case, the Masundvwini Royal Kraal. He asserted that even if the court in the divorce action ordered the first respondent to forfeit all matrimonial properties and privileges, this could not extend to the parties’ home on ENL, as the court lacked jurisdiction to determine ownership.

“After their divorce, the parties should have reported the issue of their home to the Masundvwini Royal Kraal for purposes of addressing their rights to the homestead,” he explained.
He added that although the applicants filed an urgent application, they failed to specify the circumstances that rendered the matter urgent and why they claimed they could not obtain substantial redress at a later hearing. The clergyman noted that they merely prayed for condonation to bypass the normal time limits for filing their application, without fulfilling their obligation to demonstrate the urgency of the matter. Furthermore, he pointed out the absence of a certificate of urgency from an attorney attached to the application.

He requested that the court uphold the points of law and dismiss the application with costs at the attorney-and-own-client scale. If the court did not uphold the points of law, he sought leave to respond on the merits. Meanwhile, Acting Magistrate Mciza dismissed the application on the grounds that the court lacked the necessary jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter. He stated that the issue involved property situated on ENL, and thus the Masundvwini Royal Kraal, which was not cited by the applicant, had sole jurisdiction as a traditional structure.

“The issue of the proper forum arises from determination. A proper choice must be made between the Roman Dutch common Law courts and the Swazi courts,” Mciza said. Additionally, the acting magistrate stated that the court cannot review or appeal matters from ENL or Swazi courts, although the High Court can. The first respondent was granted costs against the applicants at a punitive scale.

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: