The Onderberg’s Zietta van Rensburg implicated in ‘serious misconduct’

Shock waves are rippling through the Onderberg with the revelation that many of the disgraced attorney, notary and conveyancer Zietta van Rensburg’s clients have allegedly been conned by her over the past few years.

The Legal Practice Council (LPC) has been investigating multiple complaints against her, and approached the Mpumalanga High Court with an urgent application requesting Van Rensburg’s suspension pending disciplinary proceedings.

While no one had found her guilty of any crime or misconduct, the judgment by Judge Brian Mashile and Acting Judge JL Bhengu explained why her suspension by court order was necessary at this time.

Firstly, the LPC has, based on its investigations to date, concluded that she had likely misappropriated trust monies or made herself guilty of serious misconduct.
Secondly, the complaints against her were serious enough to grant a court’s intervention in order to protect the public.

The judges did not accept her arguments that the matters to which the complaints related were sub judice, nor that there were disputes of fact involved that would warrant not suspending her.

This, Van Rensburg argues, placed her in a position in which she is “forced to fight with my hands tied behind my back”.

She intends to appeal the suspension based on the court’s non-acceptance of her arguments that she could not respond to all allegations based on cases being sub judice.

“This and attorney-client privilege places me in a difficult position – I cannot respond fully while bound by these confidentiality rules, which means that my right to be heard in terms of the audi alteram partem rule is not effected.”

She also indicated that the LPC’s case was not supported by adequate supporting documentation from the victims themselves.

The Supreme Court of Appeal has not yet granted her leave to appeal, but the LPC has since confirmed that she may continue to practise in the interim.

In their suspension order dated February 22, judges Mashile and Bhengu expressed their shock in response to what the LPC investigation had unearthed. While the LPC has nine complaints against Van Rensburg on record, only six formed part of the application, and Lowvelder’s investigation revealed that these were merely the tip of the iceberg.

Below are the exclusive interviews with victims who tell their stories, along with excerpts from court records dealing with their harrowing experiences.

The Joneses’ story:

What was supposed to be the start of an exciting retirement for the well-known Malalane residents, Allan and Joy Jones, turned into a nightmare when Van Rensburg allegedly convinced them to ‘invest’ in an ethanol project.

After the sale of their popular pub, Duck & Dive, in June 2022, the couple made ready to pack their caravan and hit the road on a well-deserved holiday. The new owners took over on July 1, and Joy said they were excited to enjoy their golden years.

It all changed in July 2022 when Van Rensburg allegedly called Joy and enquired whether the sale had gone through, and if the couple had received their money.

“Zietta said there was an opportunity to make a bit of extra money through an investment in an ethanol project, but she had to raise a specific amount to offer a guarantee.”

Van Rensburg allegedly needed R1m, and offered the Joneses a R240 000 return on investment within eight weeks, as well as interest on the money and 2% shares in the company.

 

The couple said they knew Van Rensburg and trusted her proposal, because she was an attorney. Their new business venture was to buy a TLB, which was already on order, and they decided do the investment as the extra bit of money would assist them greatly as they set out to travel.

By mid-November, the Joneses started worrying as their continued enquiries with Van Rensburg were met with excuses.

In the WhatsApp messages between Joy and Van Rensburg, she cited problems with her banking platform, poor service from First National Bank and external factors impacting the ethanol plant project as reasons for the delay.

In an email to the Joneses on November 14, 2022, Van Rensburg said the project had gained momentum and set out the funding structure. She listed several possible sites for the project.

But in January 2023, the promised return on investment and the rest of their capital had not been repaid.

The new TLB was not an option any more, and the couple bought a second-hand one, which cost them thousands to repair. “We still had our monthly commitments and our money was dwindling. The monthly income we were going to make from the TLB was part of our financial planning, and we were stuck.”

To comfort the Joneses about their investment, Van Rensburg sent an email she claimed was sent by Pieter Zeelie, administrator of the Mjejane Trust. It confirmed their joint investment as well as the 2% shareholding of the Nkomazi Group. The email was sent on a Mjejane Trust letterhead.

In May, Joy sent Zeelie an email enquiring about their funds, upon which he replied that he had no knowledge of what she was referring to. When asked about the email and his relationship with Van Rensburg on Saturday February 2, Zeelie vehemently denied having anything to do with the Nkomazi Group or the contents of the email.

The only ties between the Mjejane Trust and Nkomazi Fuel is the five hectares of land the company rents from the trust. “I have not been involved with any ethanol project, nor negotiations about it. My name, signature and email address were forged and illegally used.”

Zeelie said he was going to take the matter up with his attorneys. “I know Zietta, because she represents a few owners at Mjejane, but I have not had dealings with her in the past few months.”

Meanwhile, Joy kept on sending daily WhatsApp messages to Van Rensburg, which were met with excuses. Getting annoyed, the Joneses threatened her with criminal charges and involving the press.

In May 2023, Van Rensburg told them she was laying charges with the Bank Ombudsman, who was pivotal in the delay of their refund. Lowvelder’s media queries to the ombudsman had not been responded to at the time of publication.

Van Rensburg sent the Joneses a proof of payment.

On May 25, 2023, the Joneses laid a complaint at the LPC and on July 2, 2023, Joy sent Van Rensburg a WhatsApp: “We are tired of talking and thinking of nothing else, it has consumed all our time, our thoughts, and our lives. We are not prepared to go another day, leading to another week, which leads to another month – today we stop the bus and get off. Just had enough. You have to remember we paid the money into YOUR trust account, with the belief that it would be available after eight to 10 weeks. It is now 10 months, and we’ve had enough. We just can’t do this anymore, it’s killing us. It stops with us today.”

“By this time I was on medication for stress and depression,” said Joy.

On June 7, the Joneses’ legal representative, Schalk de Waal, corresponded with Van Rensburg and demanded an immediate payment plus interest, and threatened her with an urgent application.

On June 15, the initial investment eventually reflected in the Joneses’ account, and Van Rensburg claimed that the Bank Ombudsman complaint had finally forced FNB to pay.

Joy told Lowvelder on Saturday February 2 that their lives have been ruined. “We will either have to sell our property or move into a caravan and rent our home to get an income. Why did she choose us? We still didn’t receive our interest, nor have any proof of our 2% shareholding.”
On February 2, 2024, a last WhatsApp was sent to Van Rensburg requesting settlement of the R240 000 and the interest. To date, they have received no feedback.

Estate not finalised

“This behaviour is not only unwholesome, but is unbecoming of a practitioner and deserves a fitting censure.”

These were the words of Judge Brian Mashile in October 2022, when he handed down judgment in a case in which Van Rensburg had acted as executor of an estate.

After a tragic incident on October 2, 2019, in which two parties had died, Van Rensburg was appointed the executor of one of the deceased’s estates.

A minor was one of the three beneficiaries in the will. Two years after the incident, the child’s guardian (who can’t be named in order to protect the minor) had not yet received any documentation or feedback from Van Rensburg.

It transpired that she had also not yet reported the deceased’s estate to the Master of the High Court.

The court records reveal that Van Rensburg had informed the minor’s guardian on February 10, 2021, that the estate had indeed been reported, but when judgment was handed down in 2022, the estate remained unreported.

Four months after Van Rensburg had claimed that the estate had been reported (being June 2021), she could not furnish the guardian with a death certificate, and then she claimed she was about to report the matter.

Attempts to get information from Van Rensburg were met with empty promises, and it was decided to launch the court application to gain access to the documentation.

Judge Mashile cited Sections 7(1) and 8(1) of the Administration of Estates Act. 66 of 1965, which prescribes that any death has to be reported to the Master within 14 days after the event, and that a death certificate has to be submitted as soon as it becomes available.

During the first court proceedings on October 6, 2022, Van Rensburg did not attend and did not apologise to the court for not doing so.

On the day before the second hearing, she sent the death certificate to the guardian, but they were already on their way to Mbombela to attend the hearing.

Judge Mashile said, “The only manner in which a court can express its displeasure with this kind of behaviour by a party who is not only a respondent but a practitioner as well, is to mulct him/her with more than ordinary costs.”

Stonecrete Property Investments and related complaints

Multiple complaints relating to Stonecrete Property Investments formed part of the LPC judgment.
Stonecrete was owned by the Cronjé family.

Van Rensburg allegedly misrepresented that she had a mandate from Stonecrete to enter into a Commission Advance Discounting Agreement with Noordhoek-based Partnership Acceptances (Pty) Ltd, one of the complainants. In essence, a loan of R520 000 was taken out subject to repayment upon registration, but was never repaid.

Another complaint relating to the same property was instituted by a Pretoria law firm. From the proceeds of an immoveable property transaction, Van Rensburg should have paid the outstanding R320 000 on Stonecrete’s Standard Bank mortgage account, but allegedly failed to do so. She had, however, furnished the

Pretoria bond attorney with documents purporting to be proof of payment, which, according to court papers, turned out not to be authentic.
For one of the Cronjé’s (first name withheld at his request), the past four years have been hell. He had to forfeit certain assets he committed to based on proceeds owed to him, which didn’t materialise in the deal Van Rensburg had handled on their behalf.

Cronjé told Lowvelder that he and his late brother were shareholders in Stonecrete, which came from his late father’s estate. The property, on the banks of the Crocodile River, was supposed to be a simple transaction as they had a cash buyer.

“In December 2020, the seller had paid the full amount into her trust account. Then it all went south.”

Van Rensburg allegedly never settled the outstanding balance. When asked about the transaction, Cronjé said she had a million excuses. At first they believed her, and continued with transactions based on the finalisation of the sale.

He said for two years, Van Rensburg had held them at bay and never finalised the transaction. The new owner of the house sued Cronjé (Stonecrete), and Cronjé says Van Rensburg then blamed it on the fact that Cronjé’s accountant had changed addresses without her being informed. Pending litigation relating to the property was another excuse, but she did not come up with case records.

“She never acknowledged that she had received the full amount of the purchase in December 2020, and always put forward that the registration of the property was being delayed by all the court cases.”

Standard Bank became irate, and because of non-payment and interest, fines and costs were added to the outstanding settlement amount, which Cronjé says has since escalated to R500 000.

In January 2023, Van Rensburg allegedly assured them the deal was almost done, but that there was only going to be R500 000 left after all the costs. In May, the Cronjés registered a complaint with the LPC, which eventually contributed to the February judgment. Meanwhile, in a related case in December 2023, Acting

Judge Gumede granted an order to Stonecrete that Van Rensburg had to provide them with full financial disclosure on the deal and that the parties had to come to an agreement on the amount payable to them.

On February 9, 2024, arguments in the matter were supposed be heard, but the matter was not concluded.

To this day the Cronjés have not received a cent. “When we settled with Standard Bank, their legal representative said to me: ‘I hope you get your money.’ Well, we haven’t, and now focus our hopes on the LPC to assist us in the matter,” Cronjé concluded.

The purchaser of the above property, a W Moss, laid a complaint in May 2022 after Van Rensburg had furnished him and his wife with fake documentation in attempts to convince them that the property had been transferred. One was a Search Works property search result, which the Deeds Office in Mpumalanga dismissed as not being legitimate. It was only once a court order was obtained by the Mosses that the property was registered. In May and July 2022, the LPC requested a response from Van Rensburg, who had, at the time of the judgment, not yet reacted.

In the February judgment, Judge Mashile said that Van Rensburg’s main defence that these matters were sub judice “rings hollow in circumstances where she has not furnished details of what is before the court.”

He further said, “The misrepresentations in these complaints amount to fraud, dishonesty and a breach of the public’s trust in the profession. It is disconcerting that Ms Van Rensburg does not seem to acknowledge the seriousness of this matter.

“Her lack of concern is displayed in her failure to respond to letter [sic] and in not addressing herself directly to the complaints raised in these pleadings.”

Marie Meyers (Pty) Ltd

Van Rensburg was reported by Partnership Acceptances a second time.

This time, she had misrepresented having a mandate from a local company and Marie Meyers (Pty) Ltd to enter into a bridging finance discounting agreement of R1 900 000. The amount would be repaid upon registration of their immovable property transaction, but it turned out that she never had the necessary mandate to enter into this agreement.

Alwyn van Graan

In October 2020, Onderberg farmer Alwyn van Graan was still chairperson of the Lower Kaap Irrigation Board when a dispute arose about the voting rights of certain members at the annual general meeting (AGM) that was planned for October 14.

In the days preceding the AGM, WhatsApp messages had been shared on the Laer Kaap Board Members group that indicated that violent protests might be held at the planned meeting.

The messages claimed that Van Graan had been instrumental in blocking members from the Mpakeni Mlegeni Communal Property Association (referred to as the CPA) from exercising their voting rights, as well as barring them from the meeting – an allegation he denies.

Board member Walter Giuricich warned Van Graan in one message: “Alwyn, you are going to cause a riot. The CPA is mobilising. Are you really wanting to cause instability in the local area? Remember, this is going to affect you as well as your neighbours. This is going to become a racial thing unless you retract our attempt to block CPA members from attending the meeting.”

The members became hesitant to attempt this. One person wrote: “I’m not aware of the extent of the situation, but is it safe to attend?”

In another message, a member said he had engaged with the CPA, who confirmed they were not part of any mobilisation, nor had they had any intentions of protesting.

On the day of the meeting, Van Rensburg attended and signed the attendance register as the representative of the CPA – a designation they claim she did not hold.

During the meeting, a motion of no confidence in the board was raised, which Van Graan disputes and said was not in line with the provision for procedures in the Water Act 54 of 1956.

One board member stood up and said he was resigning, as his farm was named in the threatening messages.

Van Graan, who maintained that he had not known what was coming, told Lowvelder, “In a message sent to the secretary of the irrigation board, Ms Ronel Oeloffsen, Giuricich was clear that he wanted me out.”

The message stated that certain things would have to happen before or at the AGM in order to get Kudu Group’s support and buy-in”. The list included Van Graan’s resignation from the board, “including any subcommittees he is presently involved in with the minor or major board, with the condition that he will not make himself available for nomination/election for a period of 15 years.”

After the meeting, Van Graan engaged with the CPA to establish what their concern was.

It transpired that Van Rensburg was not their legal or any representative, and that they distanced themselves from the WhatsApps that had been sent.

On Monday February 4, Zambia Banda, the CPA’s secretary, told Lowvelder they were perturbed that Van Rensburg had engaged in communication with the irrigation board on their behalf.

Weeks before the AGM, Van Rensburg requested the financial statements of the board and wrote: “You will appreciate that our clients, the Mpakeni Community, has a vested interest in the status of these accounts”.

Banda said the CPA had received an email invite to the AGM and had not threatened anyone at any stage.

Van Graan said after the repercussions of what had transpired at the AGM, he laid a complaint at the LPC against Van Rensburg in May 2021 for misrepresentation.

In her reply to the LPC on the complaint, Van Rensburg said the resolution that was taken that she was not the CPA’s representative was indeed incorrect, and that they were misled when submitting it. She further said Van Graan’s conduct was the proverbial ‘women scorned’ and that his complaint to the LPC was malicious and defamatory.

In May 2023, Van Rensburg did not attend the disciplinary hearing at the LPC due to ill health.

Lowvelder had asked the LPC for an update on the case, but none had been received by the time of publication. Van Rensburg had indicated that attorney-client privilege barred her from providing comment on this matter, and that her correspondence to the client requesting consent to waive it had not been answered in the affirmative.

The CPA

A lease agreement between the CPA and Van Rensburg’s clients in Low’s Creek has led to high court litigation, which had been decided against them in June 2022.

While the CPA alleged that they had been tricked into signing a property rental agreement that differed from what had been negotiated, Judge TV Ratshibvumo found that the signed version was and remains legally binding.

The CPA reported being in the process of appealing the decision according to them; the appeal was set down for hearing in April. When Lowvelder enquired on the status of the case, court personnel indicated that it had been removed from the court roll.

The CPA’s secretary, Zambia Banda, told Lowvelder that the CPA remains adamant to appeal the outcome. During an interview with the publication, he explained how the signing of what he believes is the wrong agreement came about. The CPA was contacted by a Mr Selby Mamba who was representing Van Rensburg’s clients, who informed them that he could possibly assist them in finding new tenants for two pieces of land of which the lease agreements were coming to an end.

The dispute stems from the lease of two CPA farms in November 2020. In their LPC complaint filed in November 2022, the CPA claims that the contract they had signed was not what had been discussed at a meeting with Van Rensburg and their clients.

“We met the parties on the Friday and certain issues were discussed, like the compound, which we said could not be demolished, and a lease period of nine years and 11 months. But no notes were made or distributed to us.

“We agreed to the lease, and on Friday evening, Zietta contacted our chairman and said a contract was ready to be signed on the Saturday.”

Banda said they signed in good faith and then asked for a copy of the contract. Soon after, the compound was demolished and the access road to the area was closed.

The CPA was unhappy. Six months into the lease, they still had no copy of the contract, until it was hand-delivered to them.

It was only then that they picked up alleged discrepancies between what was discussed and what the contract stipulated.

They did not understand why Van Rensburg had included that a rental amount of 5% had to paid to a company called CPA Connect, of which Van Rensburg and Mamaba were the directors. The contract also stipulated that the money had to be paid to CPA Connect or Van Rensburg Attorneys in lieu of management services of the lease, and 5% commission in the event of a sale of any of the properties.

The CPA not only laid the LPC complaint, but also started a legal process to get the contract declared null and void, which eventually ended up in the high court.
The tenants further required the title deeds for the land, which the CPA refused to give.

The high court found in favour of the tenants, but agreed that the title deeds were not to be handed to the tenants. It is an ongoing case, which will be covered by Lowvelder.

Van Rensburg responded to these allegations by indicating that the court had decided in her favour. She said additional comment could not be given due to attorney-client privilege, which bars her from responding in detail.

In addition to the above, the LPC judgment on February 22 detailed more allegations leading to Van Rensburg’s suspension.

The Ten Siefthoff family

The couple Edith and Bob Ten Siefthoff reside in Albiz, Switzerland, but owned a property in the Onderberg and instructed Van Rensburg Attorneys Inc to sell it for R825 000.

After municipal fees had been deducted, R783 096.25 was payable to the sellers. Van Rensburg provided them with proof of payment, but the money never appeared in their bank account. Their LPC complaint was not met with a response from Van Rensburg.

Mumford

Van Rensburg Attorneys Inc was instructed to wind up the estate of the late Mr Mumford.

The Mpumalanga Master’s Office did not issue an executor’s letter based on lack of response to enquiries put to the firm. A letter materialised, seemingly issued by the Master’s Office in Johannesburg, as did a court order stating that funds belonging to the estate be paid into the firm’s Investec account. A payment of R1 394 920.27 was made, before it turned out these documents had been labelled falsified in the February 22 judgment.

Another law firm, CPA Pretorius, was instructed to continue with the winding up of the estate. When CPA Pretorius asked for money in the estate account to be transferred, another proof of payment was allegedly fabricated, and they did not receive the money.

Van Rensburg’s response

In response to the allegations as a whole, Van Rensburg said, “I have prepared a concept answer to the enquiries received with supporting documentation. I have contacted each party involved to obtain their consent to make the information available. The requests were either rejected, ignored or met with hostile letters of demand to NOT make the information available. Only one party consented, but not the counterparties in the matter. I continue to find myself in a situation where, in order to defend my integrity, I have to breach attorney-client privilege and forfeit my integrity. This was one of the arguments I raised in the application against me, as I am continuously being denied to have my side of the story ventilated [sic]. The parties are placing a high value on my silence. In one particular matter, one attorney is acting on behalf of two parties. In the one matter, my integrity is critical, and in the other, the key to success is to diminish it. The same judge delivered judgment on both those matters with strong contrasting outcomes, as I was not in a position to make information available without their client’s consent.”

Lowvelder asked Giuricich and Mamba for comment, but none had been received by the time of publication.
According to the police, no criminal charges have been laid against Van Rensburg.