From R200 to redemption: Soweto woman wins back home after 20-year battle with Standard Bank

After fighting for 20 years, a woman from Soweto has finally regained ownership of her home, where she had lived for 23 years.

The house was unlawfully auctioned by Standard Bank and bought by the bank itself for just R200. It was then sold to another buyer, who later obtained a court order to evict her.

This happened despite Mogudi Batsile Mosai not having signed anything – as was meant to be the case under the law – nor having received eviction papers or being aware of the eviction. In fact, her family was so in the dark as to what was going on, they even improved the property.

The lengthy court matter went on for so many years until landing up in the Johannesburg High Court to finally be settled that Mogudi’s husband died, she managed to get to the point where she went from studying a Masters degree (although not in law) to being accepted for a PhD on a bursary, running out of money because of her husband’s medical bills, and the law and other lawyers being of no use. 

Mogudi, who was married to the now deceased Meshack Mogudi who died in 2013, likely due to and was a beneficiary and executor of his will, took Standard Bank to court because she wanted to reverse judgements that saw her home, which she had been living in for 23 years, sold out from under her feet and her and her children evicted. 

Meshack died in 2013, likely due to kidney failure, and his hospital bills for dialysis ran to some R20 000, even though the couple relied on government treatment.

In July 1991, Meshack acquired a grant of leasehold from the Soweto City Council, which preceded him mortgaging the property to Standard Bank to fund a business venture. However, Mogudi didn’t sign any papers, which the bank not only admits, but is also in contravention of some sections of the Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984. 

This law states that one spouse in a marriage in community of property cannot, among other things, mortgage any immovable property without their partner’s signature – a clause that extends to houses.

Whether the Mosais were married under this regime was a matter of some dispute, although Standard Bank conceded that the couple were married in community of property, with “the usual consequences of such a marriage setting in,” the decision stated.

In the ruling, the judge, as a side note, said that “although nowadays academic, it should be remembered that during the apartheid regime a marriage between a black woman and a black man was taken to be out of community of property unless the parties made a declaration to the contrary to the marriage officer at least a month prior to the marriage itself”.

Unfortunately, Meshack’s business failed, and he fell behind on payments, which led to default judgment being granted against him in 1993 for payment of R109 011.49, interest on that amount at 16% a year from November 1993 until he settled the outstanding amount, as well as that the house could be sold to defray Meshack’s liabilities in terms of the court order. 

The annual interest rate for the full year was 15.5% in 1993.

What is key, however, as Acting Judge S van Nieuwenhuizen pointed out, was that Mogudi said that neither she nor Meshack received summons. “The executrix [Mogudi] is adamant if it was served on the deceased she would have been made aware thereof. She also annexes a copy of the Sheriff’s return of service which asserts that the summons was served on Mrs Lethollo, a person who is unknown to her.

What followed was Standard Bank buying the property at auction for what the Judge called a “paltry amount of R200”. This, said Van Nieuwenhuizen, was “an unhealthy practice which was particularly rife amongst banks at the time,” even though the interim Constitution had come into effect.

Neither of the Mosais were aware that the property had been sold to Standard Bank for a measly R200, so they carried on living there. In 2001, Servcon Housing Solutions – which the Judge said was “purporting to act on behalf of the bank” asked Mogudi to sign a lease agreement, which she did after consulting with her husband, who was in Kenya.

 The judgement indicated that Mogudi was “unaware of the significance of the document”. However, she received a letter indicating that Standard Bank accepted the rental at R904 a month, and she was also provided with a copy of the lease agreement.

Mogudi argued that, as long as they continued to pay this amount, the property would remain theirs – although there were arguments before the Judge that she wasn’t illiterate and should have known that there was something “amiss” especially as, by 2007, she was studying towards a master’s degree in chemistry.

Yet, the Judge said that her studies didn’t mean that she understood the law, and “I have no reason to suspect that she had any comprehension of [her] legal position,” under several Acts, said Van Nieuwenhuizen. This was the case until she and her husband were advised by Fluxmans attorneys about their legal rights in 2007.

Even though they were renting, they fixed the property up, spending R100 000 and the value of the property increased to around R450 000. The bank disputes these improvements in the absence of documentation, read the ruling.

And then, without Mogudi’s knowledge, the house was sold out from under her feet for R50 000 and then the new owner managed to, in November 2007, get the couple evicted. This is when they went to Fluxmans, which sought to halt the eviction until they could act against the bank. The application was struck down because that judge didn’t view it as urgent.

Then, before Meshack died, the new owner tried to confirm the validity of the eviction order, while the couple could no longer afford Fluxmans, and their new attorney who vanished, and other attorneys couldn’t deal with the matter because it was complicated and complex.

Even the Constitutional Court and the Public Protector were of no use as she was ignored even though Mogudi had supplied contact details. “She and the deceased were never referred to pro bono organisations or legal aid clinics,” stated Van Nieuwenhuizen.

By the time the matter got to the Johannesburg High Court, Mogudi was studying towards a PhD on a bursary and as a part-time tutor, while two of her children were also studying. Only her daughter was in full-time employment and, in addition to the sparsity of income, the family was also supporting a grandchild and an unemployed son. 

The judge ruled that Mogudi was entitled to get the property back from its new owner and that it can be treated as part of Meshack’s estate, which means, as he had no will, it goes to the Mosai family.

IOL