Winnie Madikizela-Mandela is not giving up on her claim to former president Nelson Mandela’s Qunu property and has served notice to appeal the matter in the Supreme Court of Appeal.
Yesterday, she re-launched her bid to take ownership of her ex-husband’s Qunu property when her Mthatha-based lawyer Mvuzo Notyesi filed a notice of application for leave to appeal a decision by three judges from outside the province.
Notyesi confirmed to the Dispatch yesterday they had filed the notice to take the matter to the Supreme of Court of Appeal.
Last week, Mthatha High Court Deputy Judge President Zamani Nhlangulela read out a judgment reached by Limpopo Judge President Mampuru Makgoba, Free State Judge Ian van der Merwe and North Gauteng Judge Mmonoa Teffo.
They dismissed Madikizela-Mandela’s application to be declared the legal owner of her former husband’s Qunu home.
The judges also ordered Madikizela-Mandela to pay the legal costs of the executors of Mandela’s estate and those of the then-minister of land affairs.
Immediately after the judgment was read out, Notyesi told the Dispatch that Madikizela-Mandela believed she could not have conceivably foretold that Nelson Mandela would not leave the house to the children and grandchildren.
Notyesi claimed Mandela knew that, historically, Winnie had acquired the land.
The lawyers also argue that the three judges erred in finding that Nelson Mandela visited Qunu upon his release from prison and decided to build his home there.
“The court ought to have found that, as indicated in the numerous unchallenged affidavits of community leaders and elders, the site had already been pointed out to Mrs Mandela prior to Mr Mandela’s release from prison.”
Madikizela-Mandela’s lawyers also contend that;
lThe court erred in finding that the Mandela’s marriage had irretrievably broken down by April 1992 and that there was no marital relationship between them after April 13, 1992.
The civil divorce only took place in 1996. The customary marriage was never dissolved and existed until Mandela’s death, and;
lThe court erred in finding that the house in Qunu was used by Nelson Mandela to the exclusion of any right of Winnie Mandela. There was no evidence to this effect.
“On the contrary, it is common cause that, even after the civil divorce, Mrs Mandela had unrestricted access to the house.
“To this day, she continues to use the house to perform all the necessary rituals and customary practices. It is also not disputed that she is regarded as an elder in the Mandela family.
“According to the affidavits of the leaders and elders of the Qunu communities and the Mandela family, Mrs Mandela remains a wife of AbaThembu,” her lawyers wrote.
They also state that while the civil divorce took place in 1996, the decision by the minister to dispose of the land was taken in November 1997.
Hence she could not have known of the steps taken to donate the land at the time of the civil divorce.
Yesterday, the royal family of the Kingdom of AbaThembu said they were worried that the late Nelson Mandela’s family name was being dragged to courts by someone who should be protecting it.
AbaThembu spokesman Daludumo Mtirara said although Madikizela-Mandela was within her rights to take the matter to court, the royal family contended it was a family matter that needed to be sorted out by the family.
Mandela’s grandson Chief Mandla Mandela, who is also the head of the Mandela household, declined to comment saying it was news to him that Madikizela-Mandela had filed a notice of application for leave to appeal.
The Qunu property was bequeathed to the Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela Family Trust by Mandela for the benefit of the Mandela family, including his third wife Graca Machel and her children.
Last week the judges found that Madikizela-Mandela’s claim to the property was made nearly 17 years after the divorce and that “the period of the delay was excessive and was not satisfactorily explained.
“The prejudice to the executors and the beneficiaries of the will is manifest.
“He arranged his affairs and made the dispositions in his will on the acceptance that he had unencumbered ownership of the property.
“The property constituted a major financial and emotional asset in his estate.
“ To overturn this would be grossly prejudicial,” they found. — sikhon@dispatch.co.za
WINNIE FIGHTS BACK
Yesterday, she re-launched her bid to take ownership of her ex-husband’s Qunu property when her Mthatha-based lawyer Mvuzo Notyesi filed a notice of application for leave to appeal a decision by three judges from outside the province.
Notyesi confirmed to the Dispatch yesterday they had filed the notice to take the matter to the Supreme of Court of Appeal.
Last week, Mthatha High Court Deputy Judge President Zamani Nhlangulela read out a judgment reached by Limpopo Judge President Mampuru Makgoba, Free State Judge Ian van der Merwe and North Gauteng Judge Mmonoa Teffo.
They dismissed Madikizela-Mandela’s application to be declared the legal owner of her former husband’s Qunu home.
The judges also ordered Madikizela-Mandela to pay the legal costs of the executors of Mandela’s estate and those of the then-minister of land affairs.
Immediately after the judgment was read out, Notyesi told the Dispatch that Madikizela-Mandela believed she could not have conceivably foretold that Nelson Mandela would not leave the house to the children and grandchildren.
Notyesi claimed Mandela knew that, historically, Winnie had acquired the land.
The lawyers also argue that the three judges erred in finding that Nelson Mandela visited Qunu upon his release from prison and decided to build his home there.
“The court ought to have found that, as indicated in the numerous unchallenged affidavits of community leaders and elders, the site had already been pointed out to Mrs Mandela prior to Mr Mandela’s release from prison.”
Madikizela-Mandela’s lawyers also contend that;
lThe court erred in finding that the Mandela’s marriage had irretrievably broken down by April 1992 and that there was no marital relationship between them after April 13, 1992.
The civil divorce only took place in 1996. The customary marriage was never dissolved and existed until Mandela’s death, and;
lThe court erred in finding that the house in Qunu was used by Nelson Mandela to the exclusion of any right of Winnie Mandela. There was no evidence to this effect.
“On the contrary, it is common cause that, even after the civil divorce, Mrs Mandela had unrestricted access to the house.
“To this day, she continues to use the house to perform all the necessary rituals and customary practices. It is also not disputed that she is regarded as an elder in the Mandela family.
“According to the affidavits of the leaders and elders of the Qunu communities and the Mandela family, Mrs Mandela remains a wife of AbaThembu,” her lawyers wrote.
They also state that while the civil divorce took place in 1996, the decision by the minister to dispose of the land was taken in November 1997.
Hence she could not have known of the steps taken to donate the land at the time of the civil divorce.
Yesterday, the royal family of the Kingdom of AbaThembu said they were worried that the late Nelson Mandela’s family name was being dragged to courts by someone who should be protecting it.
AbaThembu spokesman Daludumo Mtirara said although Madikizela-Mandela was within her rights to take the matter to court, the royal family contended it was a family matter that needed to be sorted out by the family.
Mandela’s grandson Chief Mandla Mandela, who is also the head of the Mandela household, declined to comment saying it was news to him that Madikizela-Mandela had filed a notice of application for leave to appeal.
The Qunu property was bequeathed to the Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela Family Trust by Mandela for the benefit of the Mandela family, including his third wife Graca Machel and her children.
Last week the judges found that Madikizela-Mandela’s claim to the property was made nearly 17 years after the divorce and that “the period of the delay was excessive and was not satisfactorily explained.
“The prejudice to the executors and the beneficiaries of the will is manifest.
“He arranged his affairs and made the dispositions in his will on the acceptance that he had unencumbered ownership of the property.
“The property constituted a major financial and emotional asset in his estate.
“ To overturn this would be grossly prejudicial,” they found. — sikhon@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