Selato was suing Moaro for the two ranches in the Ngwato Land Board territory, and Kgosi Mokhutshwane Sekgoma was cited as the second respondent.
Delivering judgement, Makhwade said the dispute essentially started in 2014 as an urgent application when the applicant sought an interdict against the respondents from proceeding with the distribution of the estate of the late brother, Kgolo Selato.
“The main contention of the applicant in that application was that the inventory taken in the estate of the deceased was unlawful and of no force as ranches number 130 MP and 132 MO situated in the Ngwato Land Board jurisdiction belong to him and the developments thereon. Furthermore, he said that the first respondent has no claim to the estate belonging to the late Selato as she was not an heir to the estate,” said Makhwade.
Makhwade stated that Moaro contended that the properties listed in the said inventory belonged to the late Selato who was her father and as such she was entitled to inherit from the said estate as an heir.
Makhwade added that the two issues arise from the parties heads of argument: whether the two ranches form part of the estate of the late Selato and whether the first respondent is entitled to inherit from such an estate.
with the Ngwato Land Board which gave him title to the said ranches,” Makhwade said.
There being no other evidence of any better title to the said two ranches other than the one provided by the applicant, there seem to be no reason in either principle or law why the applicant should not be regarded as the lawful owner or leaseholder of such ranches and therefore possessed a clear right to be granted a final interdict, said Makhwade.
“Although the first respondent’ s counsel attempted to hide behind the cliché that ‘he who alleges has to prove’, contending that the applicant ought to show that the first respondent is not Kgolo Selato’s daughter, that cliché cuts both ways.
The first respondent also has to show on a balance of probabilities that she is an heir entitled to inherit from the said estate something which she has not shown on papers,” Justice Makhwade stated.
As contended by the applicant’s counsel, the first give-away to the first respondent’s alleged entitlement is the different surname used by the first respondent and the fact that she never used Selato as her surname or whether if she was born out of wedlock, she was ever adopted by the late Selato before he died, the Judge noted.
“It is ordered that the rule nisi (interim interdict) granted by this court on May 14, 2014 be and is confirmed and made final with costs,” Makhwade said.
The applicant was represented by S Thapelo Attorneys while Bayford and Associates represented the first respondent.