The battle for the late former deputy president David Mabuza’s millions reached a dramatic climax in the Mbombela High Court in Mpumalanga on Tuesday, where Acting Judge Johannes Reolofse stepped in to shield the former statesman’s dependants from the immediate loss of their father’s pension investment.
The sum of R44.7-million, held by financial giant Alexander Forbes, is at the centre of the storm.
Judge Reolofse, a well-known human rights activist, sided with legal arguments advanced by Mabuza’s daughter, Tamara Silinda, who pleaded for an urgent interim order to block Alexander Forbes from releasing the funds to one of Mabuza’s “wives”, Nonhlanhla Patience Mnisi.
The case was launched by Tamara Silinda and her mother, Emunah Silinda, against Mnisi and Alexander Forbes.
Millions in the balance
The showdown unfolded in Mbombela’s inner city, where the disputed millions loomed like a ghost of Mabuza’s political rise — from provincial MEC, to Mpumalanga premier, and eventually to deputy president of the Republic under President Cyril Ramaphosa.
Alexander Forbes argued that the funds had morphed into an “investment” and could no longer be regarded as a government pension. But Advocate DJ Sibuyi of Mthunzi Chambers, for the applicants, insisted the money’s origins could not be erased
Reolofse agreed the issue demanded the full glare of a future court.
“The main concern of the applicants are that if we leave the court, the money would be transferred to the first respondent [Mnisi]. Then the money is gone. That is what they say,” he said.
A question of rights
The judge noted that Tamara had raised a prima facie right—“not conclusive,” he warned, but enough to keep the matter alive.
“A person, so as in the case of the applicant, had to convince the court that at least, there might be some prima facie right they are entitled to for them to obtain an interim interdict,” he said.
He pressed further, questioning Mnisi’s resistance to the interdict. “If harm was not imminent, I do not understand how the second respondent could have refused and even oppose this application if there was no intent in the first respondent to keep the money. Otherwise why oppose the application? It showed an intent that this money might be gone forever.”
Marriage at the heart of the feud
The interdict does not strip Mnisi of her potential claim but pauses the payout until the main court application is heard. At its core, that battle hinges on whether Mnisi’s posthumous marriage certificate to Mabuza is valid. Emunah Silinda, who says she married Mabuza customarily in 1990 and never divorced him, insists her union carries greater legal weight.
Judge Reolofse also scolded Alexander Forbes for its paperwork, finding their affidavit unconvincing.
“After having read the affidavit of Alexander Forbes, I’m not entirely convinced about how this money morphed from protected pension funds to no protection. That will have to be explained…in Part B of the notice of motion,” he said.
Though he doubted Tamara’s reliance on Section 37C of the Pension Funds Act, he said the requirements for an interim interdict were satisfied. The balance of convenience, he declared, favoured all beneficiaries rather than just one.
Costs were granted against Alexander Forbes.
“The second respondent is hereby interdicted and restrained from disinvesting, transferring, or paying out any portion of the Alexander Forbes Retirement Income Solution, living annuity fund…of the late Mr David Debede Mabuza…pending finalisation of Part B of this application,” ruled Reolofse.
“Settle your dispute”
Before rising, the judge turned his gaze to the warring family, giving them free advice.
“I want to ask the Mabuza family: Settle your dispute. We have seen so many of these kinds of disputes in court. The only thing that remains after all of this happens is scars between family members that never heal or take very long to heal. So, my humble request is, please, see how you can settle this dispute. Courts are there to settle disputes but there is always a winner and a loser.”
