EMFULENI Lifestyle and RS Lodge owner Hlelisile Ginindza has approached the High Court seeking an urgent interdict to restrain her former husband and a company from allegedly occupying and leasing property situated at Ezulwini without her consent.

Ginindza told the High Court that she was married to Sifiso Dlamini through civil rites on September 1, 2001. The marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce issued by the Magistrate’s Court on May 31, 2022.

A settlement agreement was entered into and was made an order of court.

“We established our marital home at Ezulwini under Ezulwini Royal Kraal in 2002 and stayed there during the subsistence of the marriage until its dissolution,” she said, adding that she is employed by an international organisation stationed in London.

Ginindza explained that since the divorce, disputes arose regarding ownership and occupation of the property, particularly the portion used for business purposes comprising Emfuleni Lifestyle and RS Lodge.

Because the land is situated on Swazi Nation Land, the matter was reported to the Ezulwini Royal Kraal (umphakatsi) on November 7, 2022.

She said the traditional authority issued a ruling stating that in terms of Swazi law and custom, the premises belong to the wife, dead or alive.

She said the ruling resolved the dispute regarding ownership.

ALSO READ | Umjolo Isn’t a Meal Ticket – Pastor BY KWANELE SIBIYA

Ginindza stated that she approached the court at the advice of the Ezulwini indvuna in an attempt to have the ruling endorsed and made an order of court to enable enforcement with police assistance in evicting Dlamini.

“In those numerous occasions, he threatened to shoot me and the employees,” she alleged.

A subsequent ruling dated February 15, 2023 again directed certain issues back to the traditional authority.

Ginindza alleges that despite the rulings, Dlamini refused to vacate the property and instead allegedly leased it to third parties without her knowledge or consent.

She further alleges that while an appeal is pending, Dlamini has continued to deal with the property and has now allegedly leased it to Skip Aviation Consultants (PTY) Ltd.

Ginindza said upon returning to the country on February 12 for a family visit, she went to her home in Ezulwini and observed that RS Lodge had been repainted from grey to green.

She also highlighted her financial investment in the property, stating that in March 2017 she took a loan of CHF139 000 (approximately E2 889 151.10) to develop the business side of the property.

“On February 19, I reported to the Ezulwini Royal Kraal the unlawful leasing and occupation of RS Lodge by Dlamini and Skip Aviation Consultants,” she said.

Although she reduced her complaint into writing, she said it was not formally received but directed to be heard orally instead.

On February 21, she appeared before the traditional authority together with family members, and both parties were heard.

A ruling was delivered stating that since the matter is already pending before the civil courts, she should approach the court for redress.

She has since lodged an appeal before the chief and Libandla leBantfwabenkhosi.

High Court lacks jurisdiction – Ex-husband

In an answering affidavit, Sifiso Dlamini told the court that his ex-wife had failed or deliberately omitted to make all necessary allegations in her founding papers.

He argued that she had not explicitly set out the circumstances rendering the matter urgent or why she could not obtain substantial redress in due course.

Dlamini said he was dissatisfied with the earlier judgment, which prompted him to note an appeal before the High Court that remains pending.

He further stated that Ginindza instituted proceedings seeking to have the High Court enforce the rulings of the umphakatsi declaring her the rightful owner of the property.

“This is because Ginindza’s alleged right to the ownership of the property in dispute is alleged to be derived from the rulings of the umphakatsi. I have been advised that this is impermissible and that it is the traditional structures themselves who have the authority to enforce rulings handed down by them,” he said.

He argued that if the High Court granted the relief sought, it would effectively be enforcing the ruling of the umphakatsi and assuming its jurisdiction.

He maintained that the High Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the relief sought and that Ginindza’s application should be dismissed on that basis alone.