Mbabane – A 22-year dispute over rental income from a Nhlangano property has landed the family of the late Peter Jabulani Dlamini in the High Court, with the estate’s executor seeking to recover rentals allegedly collected by his widow since his death in 2004.
Lucky Sipho Dlamini, the executor testamentary of Peter’s estate, wants the court to declare the collection of rentals by Lobatsaktsi Claudia Dlamini and her daughter Busisiwe Ngwenya unlawful and order them to repay the money, together with 9 per cent interest.
The fight has also brought Peter’s 2004 Will under scrutiny, after his widow challenged its validity, claiming that he was not mentally capable of appreciating the nature and effect of making the Will when he signed it.
The matter is before the High Court in case number 2182/26.
Claudia, who was married to Peter under Swazi Law and Custom on January 1, 1968, says the disputed Nhlangano property was their matrimonial home.
She says that after moving to Mkhulamini around 2008, the property was leased out and the rental income was intended for her upkeep and medical needs.
Lucky disputes this, maintaining that the property, described as the remainder of Portion 12, Nhlangano Township, is a developed commercial property registered in Peter’s name and forms part of his estate.
He says the property has generated monthly rentals since Peter’s death in November 2004.
The executor has asked the court to declare the property and its developments estate assets and to declare the rental collection by Claudia and Busisiwe since 2004 unlawful.
He further wants bank accounts into which the rentals were allegedly paid or transferred frozen and the money repaid with interest.
Lucky also wants the court to declare void the transfer of a portion of Portion 12 to the Ngwenya Family Trust and direct the Registrar of Deeds to register the portion in the name of Peter’s estate.
He alleges that the transfer was done without the consent of the beneficiaries and without the property being sold in accordance with the provisions of Peter’s Will.
The estate further alleges that Busisiwe, who was initially nominated as a co-executor but later resigned, became involved in the administration of the estate and that in 2011 she involved her husband, Peter Sipho Ngwenya, in executor duties.
Lucky alleges that Busisiwe used the plight of a beneficiary, Nonhlanhla, to induce him to sign a Deed of Sale between the estate and the Ngwenya Family Trust to secure tuition fees.
He also states that during an executors’ meeting on August 17, 2022, Assistant Master Thobile Nonhlonipho Maziya informed those present that the Master’s office had found that the Will had not been complied with and that it had to be followed going forward.
The rental dispute intensified in 2026 when Lucky began communicating with tenants at the Nhlangano property.
He admits sending letters directing tenants to pay their monthly rentals into the estate account and says they were instructed not to pay rentals elsewhere.
The Master subsequently wrote to the tenants on September 3, 2026, instructing them to pay rentals into the estate account from September 30, 2026, with proof of payment to be collected by Lucky as executor.
Claudia, however, approached the court seeking an interim interdict preventing Lucky and the Master from collecting, receiving or directing rental payments from the property.
She also wants the property preserved and seeks an order preventing its sale or transfer pending the final determination of her application.
At the centre of her application is the Will Peter signed on October 19, 2004, while admitted at Raleigh Fitkin Memorial Hospital.
Peter had been admitted on October 11 and discharged on November 2 before being readmitted on November 4. He died on November 13, with his death certificate citing diabetes mellitus, renal failure and respiratory failure.
Claudia says Peter was seriously ill when he signed the Will and wants RFM to provide his medical records for both hospital admissions.
The records sought include doctors’ and nurses’ notes, medication charts, laboratory results, observations, renal and respiratory assessments and any records concerning his mental state and capacity.
She says RFM had reservations about releasing the records but indicated that they could be released following a court order.
Claudia maintains that she is not asking the court to assume that Peter lacked testamentary capacity simply because he was ill. Instead, she wants the contemporaneous medical records to establish his condition when the Will was made.
She has also sought leave to file a supplementary affidavit and expert evidence after receiving the records.
The October 19, 2004 Will revoked Peter’s previous wills and nominated Busie Ngwenya and Lucky Dlamini as executors and administrators, with attorney Sabelo Mduduzi Masuku assisting with the administration.
Under the Will, a Nissan van was left to Claudia, while a BMW was to be sold to finance a house at Jojo. It also contained provisions concerning Portions 11 and 12 and the Jabu and Lopes Investments matter.
The residue of the estate was placed in the Peter Jabu Family Trust, with Busie, Lucky, Thandi Dlamini and Claudia named as trustees.
The Will was signed in the presence of two witnesses and stamped and registered by the Master on October 22, 2004.
Lucky has rejected Claudia’s challenge, describing it as an afterthought.
He says Peter survived for almost three weeks after signing the Will and that no medical professional or family member raised concerns about his mental capacity during that period.
He says Peter specifically instructed him and Claudia to leave the room when Masuku and Busisiwe approached him concerning the preparation of his final Will.
Lucky says he complied with the instruction and did not regard Peter’s conduct as evidence of insanity.
He further argues that Claudia cannot challenge the Will after accepting the Nissan van left to her under the same document.
He relies on estoppel and the doctrine of approbate and reprobate, arguing that she cannot accept a benefit under the Will while seeking to have the Will declared invalid.
Lucky has also raised a number of preliminary objections, including Claudia’s locus standi and legal capacity.
He relies on an opinion by Dr Nhlanhla Khumalo and wants Claudia to undergo a psychiatric assessment, arguing that she may require a curator bonis depending on the outcome.
A letter from Philani Clinic states that Claudia, aged 85, has multiple comorbid diseases and that her family has reported increased forgetfulness. The clinic says the cause is uncertain and recommends psychiatric assessment to rule out age-related mental degenerative conditions that could affect her clarity and reasoning and to assess her capacity to make legal decisions.
Lucky further argues that several parties were not joined to the proceedings. These include the estate, attorney Masuku, who drafted the Will, Busisiwe, who witnessed it, and the Registrar of Deeds, because the disputed property is registered in Peter’s name.
He also questions the involvement of RFM, arguing that the hospital is not a psychiatric institution and cannot provide an opinion on Peter’s testamentary capacity.
The executor says he was excluded from the first next-of-kin meeting following Peter’s death in January 2005 and only became involved in the estate administration in 2020, when he was given Letters of Administration.
New Letters of Administration issued on May 8, 2026 appointed him Executor Testamentary under estate reference EM 306/2004(B).
Lucky also disputes Claudia’s account of the Nhlangano property, saying Peter built her a house at Sibetsamoya, which she later sold without his approval while he was stationed in South Africa. Lucky says Peter subsequently secured a homestead for Claudia at kaDlovunga through the customary khonta process.”
He says the couple’s marriage took place at Hlathikhulu, where Peter’s family had a home.
The executor further states that Peter formed Jabu and Lopes Investments and encumbered Portions 11 and 12, a dispute which resulted in High Court case 1943/03.
Claudia, meanwhile, maintains that the property’s historical use as the couple’s matrimonial home cannot simply be disregarded because it is registered in Peter’s name.
No final determination on the disputed claims is contained in the papers provided, and the allegations made by both sides remain contested.
Discussion about this post