Home truths: Jeanette Traverso, the former Western Cape deputy judge president is embroiled in Abdurahman Slamang’s claim against Standard Bank, in which he claims his house was repossessed irregularly.
Former Western Cape deputy judge president Jeanette Traverso has been cited as a witness to testify in a high court action brought by Capetonian Abdurahman Slamang against Standard Bank, which he alleges fraudulently repossessed his property without a valid court order.
Traverso, who retired in 2014, is expected to confirm the forensic report of professional document examiner Andrea le Sueur, that the signature on the only court order found — allegedly fraudulent — is not hers, as claimed in Standard Bank’s papers.
Traverso was appointed to the bench in 1994, the second woman to serve as a judge in South Africa. She presided over the controversial trial of Shrien Dewani for the murder of his wife, Anni Dewani.
Traverso retired at the end of 2014, as the second-most senior judge in the Western Cape, and was replaced by Patricia Goliath in 2016.
In a sworn affidavit, Sithenjwa Dladla for Standard Bank claims that Slamang “has in his possession the very order signed by Judge Traverso”.
“That is the true order, not what the registrar might subsequently stamp. Any registrar-issued order would simply confirm what the judge has already granted,” Dladla added in the affidavit.
Slamang argues that “the signature is clearly not that of Justice Traverso, but we need the former deputy judge president to confirm that on the record”.
According to the office of the chief justice “draft orders handed up to a judge in court are initialled and dated on the top right-hand corner”.
The initials appearing at the top right-hand corner of the order that Standard Bank claims is “the true order” are the subject of the forensic report of Le Sueur, which states that the signature has “no resemblance to the known signatures of deputy judge president Jeanette Traverso”.
The ‘“known signatures” are those that appear on other court judgments handed down by Traverso.
“Based on the material provided for my examination, and subject to examination of the originals, my preliminary opinion is that the signatures are not the genuine signatures of deputy judge president Jeanette Traverso,” says Le Sueur.
The registrar of the high court Ruanne David has also been cited as a witness.
“We have written confirmation from acting judge president Patricia Goliath that the order — which Standard Bank claims is valid — was ‘not issued by the court’ and ‘does not appear to be valid’, but once again, we need the registrar to come on record,” said Slamang.
An email from Goliath says: “The copy of the order presented under cover of a forensic report has not been issued by the registrar’s office. Notably, the court stamp and signature of the registrar/assigned registrar’s clerk is absent.”
Goliath’s advice concurs with the office of the chief justice, which states that a legitimate court order “will be signed by the registrar, the date stamp of the court will be affixed and the court seal will be affixed”. None of these appear on the order which Standard Bank claims is valid.
“Standard Bank has produced nothing to prove there is an order and, despite this evidence from the court itself, it insists on obfuscating and delaying the matter, instead of saving everyone a lot of time and effort by settling the matter,” Slamang said.
“There are so many irregularities in this matter. The transcript — purportedly of the hearing — indicates I was in court but I was not and didn’t know of a hearing on the date the order was allegedly granted.
“The transcript also specifies that a Mr Kusevitsky appeared for Standard Bank and the voice on the recording is clearly that of a man, but it was (then) advocate Deidre Kusevitsky who handled the case for Standard Bank and she is, of course, a woman — there is no Mr Kusevitsky … and then, of course, the court file is missing.”
An email from registrar David confirmed that “we have searched our vaults and unfortunately could not locate the above mentioned matters”.
Current deputy judge president Patricia Goliath is also embroiled in Abdurahman Slamang’s claim against Standard Bank. (Gallo Images)
When asked who might have appeared for Standard Bank, Kusevitsky was unable to shed any light on the matter and responded with memoranda of fees, none of which include a fee for an appearance on 29 March 2011.
But in a follow-up email she said “the fact that I could only retrieve some statements is no indication that I did not appear previously”. She did, however, confirm there was no other advocate with the same surname as her at the Cape Bar at the time.
A note on the front cover of what appears to be a brief shows the name “D Kusevitsky” struck out and the name “J Tee” inserted below. When approached for comment, advocate John Tee was also not able to confirm he had appeared before Traverso for Standard Bank.
“As far as the court recording goes, it’s very unclear. It could be my voice, but I can’t confirm … I’ve had another look at what appears to be a brief cover. The writing does appear to be mine but I have no recollection of the matter at all,” he said.
Tee has also been cited as a witness to testify in the trial, to be heard later this year.
In terms of the purported order, Slamang’s Athlone property was declared “specially executable” and subsequently sold in execution.
Slamang and his extended family were evicted from their home in 2013 and their possessions dumped in an adjacent field, where they slept in a motor vehicle until they found shelter with family.
Following advice from the office of the chief justice that “if it is determined that the court order in your possession is not legitimate … The matter must be reported to (the police) for further investigation” Slamang lodged a complaint in November 2022.
The deputy national director of the National Prosecutions Service in the National Prosecuting Authority, advocate Rodney de Kock, confirmed the investigation.
Despite a delay of more than a year, he said there is “still a considerable amount of investigation outstanding and it will be premature to state whether there is a prima facie case against Standard Bank”.
The sevice had not provided any update on the status of the investigation at the time of publication.
Standard Bank has denied any wrongdoing.
“The suggestion that Standard Bank has acted irregularly and on the basis of a fraudulent court order is denied. Given that the matter is pending before court, it would be premature for us to comment further,” spokesperson Ross Linstrom said.
“Insofar as it relates to any criminal complaints, Standard Bank has not been approached by law enforcement and will fully cooperate with law enforcement.”
The bank has attempted to quash Slamang on two occasions, with an application for exception, claiming there was no cause of action, and then with an application to dismiss; both were unsuccessful.
Slamang is claiming a hefty R1 billion in losses caused by Standard Bank’s “fraudulent, unlawful, and criminal petition” to re-possess his properties and a further R49 billion at the discretion of the court, for personal suffering to himself and his extended family.
He argues that the summary judgment — fraudulent or not — was unjustified because he was up to date with bond repayments he was making to a debt management agency, which he claims mismanaged his repayments and neglected to oppose the application by Standard Bank, as the agency had undertaken to do.
He also claims that Standard Bank misrepresented his payment history by omitting payments made just 22 days before the summary judgment was purportedly granted.
The bank “fundamentally and unapologetically devastated the cornerstones and foundation of the plaintiff’s immediate and extended family, which ruination continues to this very day”, read the court papers. “Family members were forced to disperse” and “as a final indignity, forced to give away their pets, especially beloved by [the] plaintiff’s grandchildren … further damaging the family’s cohesiveness.”
The trial date has been set for 14 August 2024.