Advocate ‘had no right’ to empty Mosiuoa Lekota’s bank accounts, rules judge

The Gauteng Division of the High Court in Pretoria has delivered a scathing judgment against Advocate Luzelle Adams, accusing her of acting for “selfish reasons” while handling the affairs and finances of her late life partner, the Congress of the People (Cope) leader Mosiuoa Lekota.

Judge Anthony Millar dismissed Adams’ application for leave to appeal an earlier ruling that declared Lekota had been mentally incapable of managing his affairs during the final months of his life.

Mosiuoa Lekota died in hospital in March at the age of 77 after his estranged wife, Ntombenhle Cynthia Lekota, approached the court over concerns that more than R2-million had been withdrawn from his accounts.

In court papers, Lekota said that when she visited her husband in January, he could no longer explain the state of their finances, medical aid or investments. She said he was unable to explain why monthly payments of R5,000 to her had stopped and could not remember details of his bank accounts, financial advisers, usernames or passwords.

Meanwhile, the court heard that Adams received payments of R1,084,725 and R600,000 at a time when Lekota was no longer fully capable of managing his affairs.

The court also found that after Lekota’s son Kotane Lekota was appointed as interim curator of the estate, Adams transferred R150,000 to herself and paid R250,000 from the estate to her lawyers.

According to the judgment, Adams lived with Lekota and accompanied him to medical appointments and as such, said Judge Millar, she was fully aware of medical findings regarding his deteriorating condition.

‘Of unsound mind’

“This fact was within the knowledge of Ms Adams, who lived with the late Mr L[...] and accompanied him to all his medical appointments. Ms Adams knew that Mrs L[...] and her son K[...] L[...] were concerned about the state of health of Mr L[...], and despite knowing that Dr Makasi was of the view that he was of unsound mind, sought to enlist her assistance in concealing this fact by withdrawing the consent to receive Dr Makasi’s report,” reads the judgment.

Medical reports later obtained by the court-appointed curator, a Mr Du Preez, showed that Lekota had suffered severe cognitive decline after a stroke in April 2025.

Another specialist later concluded that Lekota had been unable to manage his legal and financial affairs since May 2025 and required protective measures.

The judge said Lekota was married in community of property to his wife, Ntombenhle, meaning their assets formed part of a joint estate. Adams, the court found, nevertheless continued transacting on accounts linked to that estate.

“It cannot be overlooked that while Mr L[…] was alive, his estate was a community estate with Ms L[…]. Ms Adams was aware of this but nonetheless proceeded to empty the bank accounts anyway, while she was consenting to the appointment of an interim curator bonis,” Judge Millar wrote.

Interests of wife ignored

The court described the matter as one involving the rights of an elderly wife whose interests had been ignored.

The judge said: “I have set out in summary what this case is about because it concerns an elderly Mrs L[...] whose interests in the community estate were disregarded by Ms Adams, who transacted with assets in that estate – a person who had no right to do so…”

Judge Millar said Adams had never denied that Lekota lacked mental capacity from May 2025 onwards, nor had she challenged the medical findings relating to his condition.

Adams had approached the court seeking leave to appeal a March ruling that granted a declaratory order regarding Lekota’s mental state and also ordered her to pay costs.

One of her arguments was that the application should not have been brought by the curator and that the court had misunderstood the nature of the proceedings. However, Judge Millar dismissed that argument, saying Adams appeared unwilling to accept that she had no claim over the joint estate.

“Ms Adams does not seem to accept that the affairs of the joint estate have nothing to do with her.”

Maintenance claim

The court acknowledged Adams may potentially pursue a maintenance claim on behalf of her minor child against Lekota’s portion of the estate. However, Judge Millar said that issue could only be determined after the estate itself had been wound up.

“At best, the claim for maintenance that she may prefer in respect of her minor child is only against M L[...]’s share of the joint estate. Before that can be determined, the whole of the estate is to be determined. Raising this issue seems to be for no purpose other than to obfuscate the fact that, for almost nine months, despite knowing Mr L[...] was incapable of managing his affairs, she continued transacting on his accounts, well knowing that, as a matter of law, any authority he may have given her to do so, had lapsed,” said the judge.

The court also referred to a curator’s report, which revealed the extent of Adams’ financial dealings.

“The curator had reported, and that report had revealed the extent to which Ms Adams had transacted on the account and the fact that she had mala fide emptied Mr L[…]’s bank account on the day that she was agreeing to the order appointing the interim curator bonis,” Judge Millar found.

In dismissing the application for leave to appeal, the judge said he was not convinced another court would reach a different conclusion.

“I am not persuaded that another court would come to a different conclusion or that there is some other compelling reason why leave to appeal should be granted,” Judge Millar ruled.

The court ordered Adams to pay Ntombenhle Lekota’s legal costs. DM