UDC activist, daughter fight in court
Lebogang Mosikare | Wednesday March 18, 2015 10:18
An eviction order delivered by the court has ordered that the respondent, Gosego Punie Mmolawa, 36, should have vacated the family home by December 5 last year.
Theresa Mmolawa’s attorney Malike Mmohe argued before Principal Magistrate Sijabuliso Siziba on Tuesday that Gosego has been given four months to look for alternative accommodation while still staying with her mother.
Mmohe said the set period had elapsed and there was no way Gosego could continue to stay with her mother because their relationship has broken down irretrievably.
Mmohe said Gosego and Theresa had traded accusations and counter accusations against each other and as such it would best serve both parties well if Gosego vacated the family home. However, Gosego’s attorney Oratile Koonne countered the soured relationship issue, emphasising that the plaintiff and defendant are mother and daughter and could not abruptly end their relationship.
He further said Theresa has not shown any reasonable cause why the defendant should vacate the family home.
“The defendant is also a beneficiary of the family estate. She is unemployed and has nowhere to stay should she be evicted from the family home,” he said.
Koonne added that sometime in December last year, the plaintiff threw away the defendant’s assets including her certificates and reference letters, from the family home which had jeopadised the defendant’s chances of looking for employment.
“She is now unable to look for employment because of the actions of the plaintiff and we pray that she be not evicted from the family home,” he said.
Koonne further said that they might reach an agreement about how the plaintiff and respondent could stay together even though it was clear that they are not in good terms.. He added: The respondent has two children who will be greatly prejudiced if she is evicted from the family home.
Where are the children going to stay if their mother is evicted from the family home?”
“In my view the court should look at the best interest of the child before executing the order that was issued on December 5, 2014.
The education of the children will be greatly harmed by the order. The court has the latitude not to follow the eviction order if it does not serve the best interests of the child,” said Koonne.
At that point Siziba asked Koonne if the court could tamper with the eviction order to which Koonne answered in the affirmative reiterating that if the order jeopadises the interests of the child then the court was at liberty to tamper with it.
However, Mmohe said that the eviction order was final and cannot be tampered with under any circumstance. He noted that the respondent could approach the high court if she was unsatisfied with the order. “The eviction order says that the respondent should have vacated the family home and not her children. The children will suffer no harm because the eviction order does not include them. Even if the respondent is thrown out on the streets it will not be the first time someone has been thrown in the street. We are also not talking about a child here but a 36-year-old adult who can fend for herself,” he said.
Mmohe further said if the respondent did not vacate the family compound, they would apply to the high court for deputy sheriffs to forcefully remove her.
Mmohe further said their wish was for her to move out without being forced to do so.
He also noted that the court had no powers to tamper with the eviction order. “If the respondent is not satisfied with the order, she may approach the high court for redress. It is our wish that this matter be resolved at family level and hopefully a settlement agreement can be reached by the two parties on how the respondent may move from the family home in a smooth way,” he said.