Ex-girlfriend denied compensation

Nthata Matsetse was spared the agony of parting with millions of pula worth of assets demanded by his ex-girlfriend Carol Mfa for the period of their alleged 14-year love affair.

The couple had been together from 2003 up until 2017, and during that period Mfa claims to have sacrificed the prime of her life giving abundant money, labour, skills, and love for the entire duration of the relationship.

During that period, the couple had been co-habiting and had a child together. As such when their relationship eventually came to an end, Mfa asserted that she should be entitled to 50% of the assets accumulated in the course of the relationship. Mfa’s assertion was that in her financial and laborious investments to the relationship and the assets that resulted therein, she was rightfully entitled to be able to leave the relationship with half of the assets she contributed.

The assets Mfa laid claim to that had all been acquired during the duration of their relationship included residential homes valued at P3.5 million, agricultural land, livestock, and three vehicles.

These claims were in addition to a demand for child maintenance fees of P2,500 per month starting from when their relationship ended. Matsetse, however, disputed the claim stating that he never received any form of service or support from Mfa when he acquired his assets, entitling him to be the exclusive owner of all the named belongings.

He further went on to state that they had only cohabited for one year, from 2005 to 2006 at her home prior to him being transferred to Kasane for work. Taking the matter to court, it was disputed in regards to what assets can and cannot be directly attributed to Mfa.

As a result, the courts found Mfa’s arguments lacking in substance as she failed to provide evidence on any alleged investment to the assets during the relationship. With regards to a multi-residential property in Tlokweng that was under construction, of which the plot had been purchased prior to the relationship, Mfa claimed to have contributed a significant amount of money towards its construction. However, she was unable to provide exact figures or documented evidence of the financial contributions. She also claimed to have purchased all the food that Matsetse ate so that he would be able to save money to further the construction of the property.

More concretely she claims to have directly resurrected a dormant company owned by Matsetse. She claimed to have registered the company with the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Board and acquiring all the necessary tax clearances for the company to commence operations.

The company was said to be engaged in bush clearing and made substantial profits that went towards the further construction of the residential property, however she was similarly unable to provide evidence towards this claim as well.

Furthermore, she claimed to have taken out a loan of approximately P50,000 of which P40,000 went to the development of the Tlokweng plot and a further P10,000 went to settling the debts of her former lover. However, like the other claims, no documented evidence of these claims were brought before the court.

Around the same time as these claims of investment were made by Mfa, being 2016, Matsetse had received a documented retirement package of P600,000 and had documented evidence of these funds being used for the construction of his properties.

With no documented evidence to support the oral claims of Mfa against Matsetse’s clearly documented evidence of his finances and spending, the High Court ruled in favour of Matsetse.

In the view that the High Court hadn’t adequately taken into account her contributions to the relationship the matter was taken to the Court of Appeal, which upheld the ruling and further asserted that child maintenance was not to be paid.

She claimed to have taken out a loan of approximately

of which went to the development of the Tlokweng plot and a further went to settling the debts of

her former lover.