Swazi Observer

FULL STORY

ZAMBIAN LOSES APPEAL AGAINST PROPERTY TRANSFER INTERDICT

By Sandile Nkambule | 2022-06-20

High Court - A Zambian national has lost an appeal against an interdict granted in favour of a mother to his twins interdicting the transfer of immovable property, which he sold.

The mother Sindi Mhlanga wants the transfer of the property sold by the father of her twins Fred Kunda interdicted, pending the determination of future maintenance of their twins.

The interdict was granted in favour of Mhlanga by Mbabane Principal Magistrate Fikile Nhlabatsi and feeling dissatisfied by the order, Kunda approached the High Court appealing for an order reviewing and setting aside the order.

When handing down judgment in the appeal, Judge Mazwi Mavuso dismissed the appeal application with costs on the ordinary scale.

“The court finds the appeal to be without merit and accordingly it is dismissed with costs on the ordinary scale,” Judge Mavuso ordered.

The background of the matter is that Kunda is a Zambian national whose residence in the Kingdom of Eswatini was legitimised by a temporary permit, which was said to have expired in July 2016.

Whilst resident in the kingdom, he registered a company KF & J Investments and was the sole director but now lives in his native country, Zambia after having closed the business.
When he left Eswatini, he also sold the immovable property, being Lot 2139 Extension 18 in Mbabane measuring 1 338 square metres.

Prior to his departure from Eswatini, there was a maintenance order requiring him to contribute a sum of E1 000 in February 2013 which was, by consent later varied to E1 500 per month for the upkeep of the twins.

However, when he left the country no agreement was reached on how the maintenance contributions would be effected and upon discovery that he had sold the immovable property, Mhlanga approached the Magistrate’s Court when she sought the order interdicting the transfer of the property pending the determination of the maintenance of the children.

Kunda then launched the appeal based on four grounds with the first being that the court a quo (Magistrate’s Court) erred in law in granting the interdict as it was allegedly not supported by any evidence.

He also raised another ground that the court a quo erred in law by ruling that Mhlanga’s application succeeds.

Erred

the court also erred in law by ignoring the fact that the children are beneficiaries in trust that own property that could be used to generate income.

Lastly, Kunda said the court a quo erred in ordering that funds owned by the company be used wholly for settlement of his personal debt.

Judge Mavuso observed that the subject matter of the proceedings before the Magistrate’s court was the immovable property in which Mhlanga sought to obtain a right over, on behalf of the two minor children as a source of income to meet Kunda’s personal obligations, hence dismissing the appeal against the interdict of transfer of the property.

share story