For my integrity - Zietta van Rensburg
which eventually ended up in the high court.
The tenants further required the title deeds for the land, which the CPA refused to give.
The high court found in favour of the tenants, but agreed that the title deeds were not to be handed to the tenants. It is an ongoing case, which will be covered by Lowvelder.
Van Rensburg responded to these allegations by indicating that the court had decided in her favour. She said additional comment could not be given due to attorneyclient privilege, which bars her from responding in detail.
In addition to the above, the LPC judgment on February 22 detailed more allegations leading to Van Rensburg’s suspension.
The Ten Siefthoff family
The couple Edith and Bob Ten Siefthoff reside in Albiz, Switzerland, but owned a property in the Onderberg and instructed Van Rensburg Attorneys Inc to sell it for R825 000. After municipal fees had been deducted, R783 096.25 was payable to the sellers. Van Rensburg provided them with proof of payment, but the money never appeared in their bank account. Their LPC complaint was not met with a response from Van Rensburg.
Mumford
Van Rensburg Attorneys Inc was instructed to wind up the estate of the late Mr Mumford.
The Mpumalanga Master’s Office did not issue an executor’s letter based on lack of response to enquiries put to the firm. A letter
materialised, seemingly issued by the
Master’s Office in Johannesburg, as did a court order stating that funds belonging to the estate be paid into the firm’s Investec account. A payment of R1 394 920.27 was made, before it turned out these documents had been labelled falsified in the February 22 judgment.
Another law firm, CPA Pretorius, was instructed to continue with the winding up of the estate. When CPA Pretorius asked for money in the estate account to be transferred, another proof of payment was allegedly fabricated, and they did not receive the money.
Van Rensburg’s response
In response to the allegations as a whole, Van Rensburg said: “I have prepared a concept answer to the enquiries received with supporting documentation. I have contacted each party involved to obtain their consent to make the information available. The requests were either rejected, ignored or met with hostile letters of demand to NOT make the information available. Only one party consented, but not the counterparties in the matter. I continue to find myself in a situation where, in order to defend my integrity, I have to breach attorney-client privilege and forfeit my integrity. This was one of the arguments I raised in the application against me, as I am continuously being denied to have my side of the story ventilated [sic]. The parties are placing a high value on my silence. In one particular matter, one attorney is acting on behalf of two parties. In the one matter, my integrity is critical, and in the other, the key to success is to diminish it. The same judge delivered judgment on both those matters with strong contrasting outcomes, as I was not in a position to make information available without their client’s consent.”
Lowvelder asked Giuricich and Mamba for comment, but none had been received by the time of going to press. According to the police, no criminal charges have been laid against Van Rensburg.