Executors of the estate of former president Nelson Mandela have described Winnie Madikizela-Mandela’s claim over his Qunu home as “confusing and opportunistic”.
They are demanding to know why Mandela’s ex-wife waited for the former statesman to die before making the claim, knowing fully well he would not be able to defend himself from beyond the grave.
On Monday Mandela’s lawyer and long-time friend George Bizos filed papers opposing Madikizela-Mandela’s claim in the Mthatha High Court.
He filed on behalf of the executors of Mandela’s will, the other two being Deputy Chief Justice Dikgang Moseneke and Judge Themba Sangoni.
Madikizela-Mandela filed the claim after it emerged the global icon had left her out of his will, following his death in December 2013.
“The applicant opportunistically waited until the death of Mr Mandela to assert her claim on the Qunu property without any valid explanation why she could not have asserted it during his lifetime.
“The relief sought is diffuse and in some places confusing,” reads the papers.
Last week, Land Affairs Minister Gugile Nkwinti also dismissed Madikizela-Mandela’s claim that she had not been aware that the house was registered in Mandela’s name.
Madikizela-Mandela has asserted that she merely accommodated Mandela.
Among those who support her version include AbaThembu King Buyelekhaya Dalindyebo.
She also bases her claim on the fact she was still married to Mandela by virtue of customary marriage, but Bizos disputes this.
“The applicant asserts a connection between her alleged customary acquisition of the property and the customary marriage she relies on, I submit that she could not lawfully rely on the customary marriage to assert a right of ownership to the property.
“The consequences of the customary marriage have been superseded by the valid conclusion of the civil marriage and its subsequent dissolution,” read the papers.
Bizos said there were no grounds for Madikizela-Mandela’s accusation that Mandela had “unduly exerted his influence” as the country’s president to secure the property.
“The suggestion that Mr Mandela improperly influenced the transfer of the property stands to be rejected as being devoid of any factual grounding.
“Nothing in the founding affidavit or in the documents produced points to any improper conduct on the part of Mr Mandela,” read the papers.
Madikizela-Mandela’s attorney Mvuzo Noteysi could not be reached for comment at the time of going to print. — loyisom@dispatch.co.za
Winnie’s claim ‘opportunistic’
They are demanding to know why Mandela’s ex-wife waited for the former statesman to die before making the claim, knowing fully well he would not be able to defend himself from beyond the grave.
On Monday Mandela’s lawyer and long-time friend George Bizos filed papers opposing Madikizela-Mandela’s claim in the Mthatha High Court.
He filed on behalf of the executors of Mandela’s will, the other two being Deputy Chief Justice Dikgang Moseneke and Judge Themba Sangoni.
Madikizela-Mandela filed the claim after it emerged the global icon had left her out of his will, following his death in December 2013.
“The applicant opportunistically waited until the death of Mr Mandela to assert her claim on the Qunu property without any valid explanation why she could not have asserted it during his lifetime.
“The relief sought is diffuse and in some places confusing,” reads the papers.
Last week, Land Affairs Minister Gugile Nkwinti also dismissed Madikizela-Mandela’s claim that she had not been aware that the house was registered in Mandela’s name.
Madikizela-Mandela has asserted that she merely accommodated Mandela.
Among those who support her version include AbaThembu King Buyelekhaya Dalindyebo.
She also bases her claim on the fact she was still married to Mandela by virtue of customary marriage, but Bizos disputes this.
“The applicant asserts a connection between her alleged customary acquisition of the property and the customary marriage she relies on, I submit that she could not lawfully rely on the customary marriage to assert a right of ownership to the property.
“The consequences of the customary marriage have been superseded by the valid conclusion of the civil marriage and its subsequent dissolution,” read the papers.
Bizos said there were no grounds for Madikizela-Mandela’s accusation that Mandela had “unduly exerted his influence” as the country’s president to secure the property.
“The suggestion that Mr Mandela improperly influenced the transfer of the property stands to be rejected as being devoid of any factual grounding.
“Nothing in the founding affidavit or in the documents produced points to any improper conduct on the part of Mr Mandela,” read the papers.
Madikizela-Mandela’s attorney Mvuzo Noteysi could not be reached for comment at the time of going to print. — loyisom@dispatch.co.za
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending Now
Latest Videos