ANC leader set to lose his R1.6m home

Pretoria News - - NATION - LOY­ISO SIDIMBA

ONE OF the ANC lead­ers touted as Deputy Pres­i­dent David Mabuza’s re­place­ment as Mpumalanga pro­vin­cial chair­per­son is set to lose his R1.6 mil­lion house for fail­ing to pay Absa over R1.3m.

For­mer ANC Mpumalanga deputy chair­per­son Charles Makola, who was once Mabuza’s sec­ond-in-charge in the gov­ern­ing party’s pro­vin­cial struc­tures, will lose the house in Wit­bank Ex­ten­sion 10 af­ter the bank­ing gi­ant suc­cess­fully ob­tained an Mpumalanga High Court or­der au­tho­ris­ing the ex­e­cu­tion of the prop­erty.

The bank made avail­able a fa­cil­ity of R1.3m to Makola and he agreed to pay a min­i­mum of about R10500 in monthly in­stal­ments.

How­ever, court pa­pers showed that Makola failed to re­pay the in­stal­ments and by Novem­ber 2017 he owed more than R1.32m.

Absa de­manded that Makola pay the R1.32m with in­ter­est at the rate of 9.25% Novem­ber 2018 to the date of pay­ment.

The for­mer Nkan­gala district mu­nic­i­pal man­ager put up his res­i­dence as se­cu­rity for the pri­vate bank­ing ac­count he utilised for six years.

Act­ing Judge Hein Brauck­mann found that although the pur­pose for which Makola used the ac­count was un­known, such fa­cil­i­ties were nor­mally used by in­di­vid­u­als who were in busi­ness for busi­ness pur­poses.

In his judg­ment last month, Judge Brauck­mann was un­con­vinced by Makola’s ex­pla­na­tion for his in­abil­ity to ser­vice the fa­cil­ity af­ter us­ing it for six years and ow­ing Absa more than when the agree­ment was en­tered into.

Makola had told the court that Absa closed the ac­count and as a re­sult, he was prej­u­diced as the bank breached its own agree­ment with him.

The value of Makola’s prop­erty is R1.6m and its forced sale value was just over R1.06m, which is less than the out­stand­ing debt, while he also owed about R9000 in rates and taxes.

Judge Brauck­mann or­dered that an amount of R1.43m be set as a re­serve price for the prop­erty.

The judge re­jected Makola’s claims of his right to ad­e­quate hous­ing and the fact that the fam­ily would be left des­ti­tute and liv­ing on the streets with­out ad­e­quate hous­ing.

“For present pur­poses, it is ap­pro­pri­ate to record that I am un­able to se­cure al­ter­na­tive ac­com­mo­da­tion for my­self, my wife and chil­dren should the im­mov­able prop­erty be de­clared spe­cially ex­e­cutable and sub­se­quently sold by the plain­tiff (Absa), notwith­stand­ing the im­mense up­set and trauma that it could cause to my wife and chil­dren,” Makola ar­gued.

Judge Brauck­mann said that Makola did not pro­vide any rea­sons why the prop­erty should not be de­clared specif­i­cally ex­e­cutable.

He also said he did not pro­vide the court with his in­come, his sources of in­come or his spouse’s, his debts or any other rea­son why he would not be able to af­ford al­ter­na­tive ac­com­mo­da­tion for his fam­ily and him­self.

Makola yes­ter­day did not re­spond to calls, text and a What­sApp mes­sage de­spite hav­ing read the lat­ter.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from South Africa

© PressReader. All rights reserved.