Hopolang Mokhopi
FOUR Congolese nationals are locked in a bitter dispute over a house in Masowe 1, with two of them accusing the others of refusing to vacate the property they claim to own.
The matter cited as, Kumbe and Yemba Shungu versus Ongala Colette Kote and Matondo Rively Nganga, is before the Land Court sitting in the Maseru Magistrate’s Court and presided over by Magistrate Lerato Ntelane.
According to court papers, Kumbe and Yemba Shungu allege that they allowed Ms Kote and Mr Nganga to occupy the Masowe 1 house temporarily after its construction without paying rent or meeting any special conditions.
The arrangement, they contend, was only meant to last until they wanted their house back or until Ms Kote secured alternative accommodation, whichever came first.
The Shungus maintain that Ms Kote was granted temporary use of the house and was not afforded any additional rights or privileges over the property.
They further state that on or about 15 April 2023, they instructed Ms Kote to vacate the house. However, they allege that she refused to leave.
According to the Shungus, relations between the parties have since deteriorated, with Ms Kote continuing to occupy the property against their wishes. They argue that her continued occupation is prejudicial to them as they intend to rent out the property for income.
They claim that every day Ms Kote remains on the property, that results in financial losses through lost rental income.
The Shungus also told the court they fear that Ms Kote could deliberately damage or vandalise the house and its fixtures because of the strained relationship between the parties.
They argue that they are the lawful owners of the property and hold the rights, title and interest in the immovable asset. They further contend that they stand to suffer irreparable harm if Ms Kote is not evicted, as her continued occupation prevents them from renting, occupying, developing or otherwise benefiting from the property.
The duo also states that it has exhausted efforts to resolve the matter amicably and has no alternative remedy available than to approach the courts.
Ms Kote and Mr Nganga, however, dispute the Shungus’ ownership claim.
In their court papers, they deny that the Shungus are the lawful owners of either the house or the improvements made on the site. They argue that registration of a lease does not automatically transfer ownership of improvements erected using another party’s resources, nor does it extinguish rights arising from a nominee, trust or agency agreement.
They further contend that the lease relied upon by the Shungus does not conclusively determine beneficial ownership, which they say remains the subject of a serious dispute.
While acknowledging that the lease was registered in the name of the original owner, Maitumeleng Macheli, on 19 November 2021, Ms Kote and Mr Nganga reject the claim that the property was sold to the Shungus.
Instead, they allege that Ms Macheli sold the site to them and that Ms Kote financed both the purchase of the land and the construction of the house.
They also claim that the original sale agreement was in Mr Nganga’s possession, which they say explains inconsistencies regarding the property’s purchase price.
Furthermore, they allege that one of the Shungus only initiated registration of the site in his own name after relations between the parties soured, despite allegedly knowing that the house and other developments had been financed and built by Ms Kote, Mr Nganga and members of the Congolese community residing in Lesotho.
