A Master of the High Court officer in Nhlangano allegedly used E2 500 that had been set aside for a beneficiary of a deceased mineworker’s benefits, leaving the beneficiary repeatedly waiting for money that had already been handed over to the master’s office for distribution.
The beneficiary was one of nine people who were meant to benefit from money belonging to their late father, who had worked in the mines.
Eight of the beneficiaries, including the deceased’s second wife and her children as well as the three children from his first marriage, were immediately available when the money was distributed at the master’s office in Nhlangano.
The ninth beneficiary was not available at the time and therefore, did not receive the E2 500 allocated to him.
The money was allegedly left at the master’s office for the beneficiary to collect later.
However, when the beneficiary subsequently tried to collect the money, a series of attempts to meet with the officer, who had been left with the cash, reportedly failed.
The beneficiary said several arrangements were made but the meetings did not take place.
On one occasion, the beneficiary was allegedly told by the officer that she was rushing home because it was raining and water was seeping into the house.
On another attempt, she reportedly stated that she had to attend a meeting, while another arrangement allegedly failed after she said she had to attend to matters at home.
The situation escalated last Tuesday when the beneficiary went to town and waited for the master’s officer after being told that they would get the money, but no meeting took place.
When contacted by this publication, the officer, Phumzile Malinga, acknowledged that the E2 500 belonging to the beneficiary had been used.
Malinga asked the beneficiary to be patient while she tried to mobilise the money and pay it back.
The admission raises questions about how money belonging to a beneficiary could be used after it had been brought to the master’s office for distribution and while it remained outstanding to the person it had been allocated to.
The beneficiary’s money was part of a larger cash payment that was distributed among the nine people.
Those who received their money were reportedly each given E2 500, while the youngest child, who was still at school, received E5 000.
The beneficiaries were required to sign a two-quire exercise book as confirmation that they had received the cash, according to some of those who received the money.
However, the beneficiaries say they were not told the total amount that had been received from the TEBA or shown how the individual amounts had been calculated.
The circumstances surrounding the movement of the money have also raised questions because the payment originated from TEBA, while the master’s office became involved in facilitating the physical distribution of the cash.
The second wife confirmed to this publication that she had left the money at the master’s office and said she was unaware that Malinga had subsequently used the outstanding E2 500.
When asked why the TEBA money had been taken to the master’s office in cash and what the payment had to do with the office, she questioned why the publication was interested in the matter and who had sent the journalist.
She later requested to call back but had not responded to subsequent calls at the time of publication.
Malinga previously explained to this publication that she had been asked by the second wife to facilitate the handover after there had been limited communication among some of the beneficiaries.
She said the woman arrived at the office with the cash and the names of the beneficiaries, together with instructions on the amount that each person was to receive.
Malinga also indicated that she did not know how the amounts payable to the individual beneficiaries had been determined.
The circumstances raise questions about what records were created when the cash was received and distributed and whether there was an official schedule showing the total amount received, the beneficiaries and their respective shares.
The questions come only weeks after the Judiciary released the findings of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into allegations of impropriety, maladministration and abuse of power at the office of the Master of the High Court.
The Judiciary published the final report on August 7, stating that the inquiry had examined, among other matters, the administration of deceased estates, accountability, efficiency, records management and the computerisation of the master’s office.
The commission had earlier been tasked with investigating allegations including maladministration, abuse of power and alleged embezzlement of estate funds within the Master’s Office.
The latest case now raises questions about the handling of money that, while not necessarily forming part of an estate administered by the master’s office, was brought to the Nhlangano office for distribution among beneficiaries.
At the centre of the matter is the unresolved E2 500 belonging to the beneficiary who was not present when the other eight received their money.
The beneficiary has yet to receive the money, while Malinga acknowledged that it was used and asked for time to replace it.
