The fraud, forgery and uttering case against Zietta Janse van Rensburg resumed in the Malalane Periodical Court on Tuesday (July 21), after the first day of the trial on Monday ended up focusing on Lowvelder’s attendance, reporting and photographs.

The state’s first witness was attorney Schalk de Waal from Cronjé, De Waal – Skhosana Inc legal firm in Mbombela.

De Waal represented Rita van den Berg in a harassment case against Grant Taylor in 2022. Janse van Rensburg was Taylor’s attorney.

He testified that the matter was finalised in November 2022 and that he sent Janse van Rensburg the cost statement during the first week in December for settlement by Taylor.

ALSO READ: Fraud trial begins for suspended Malalane attorney

De Waal said that his mandate was terminated by Van den Berg in early 2023 during a telephone call and that he viewed the matter as closed. The only thing she requested of him was to finalise the cost payment.

Review application surprise

Senior state prosecutor Tobie Steyn questioned De Waal on the timeline of events after the termination of his mandate.

De Waal testified that in May 2023 he received a call from a Mbombela-based attorney, Morné Day from Seymore du Toit and Basson, who wanted to clarify a review application that was apparently being brought by Janse van Rensburg on Taylor’s behalf.

De Waal was caught by surprise and had no idea what Day was referring to. De Waal testified that it was six months after the initial order was granted and he found it strange that there was a settlement agreement for a matter finalised in December 2022 with a final protection order.

De Waal had no knowledge of the settlement agreement referred to by Day. The settlement agreement was purportedly drafted and sent from De Waal’s office.

ALSO READ: Defence attorney accuses Lowvelder of ‘contempt’ in Malalane court

De Waal requested Day to send him the documents so he could raise it with Van den Berg.

Forged signature claims

When De Waal received the email, it had a settlement agreement attached and he noted that the email was apparently sent from his secretary, Micaela van Niekerk.

He immediately asked Van Niekerk, who said she had no knowledge of the agreement or the email. The agreement further contained Van Niekerk’s signature, and she pointed out to De Waal that it was not her signature.

He then searched Van Niekerk’s laptop to review correspondence on the matter. He could not find the email that was allegedly sent from her email address.

De Waal informed Day that the said agreement was not drawn up nor sent by him or anyone from his office.

According to his testimony, the only correspondence with Janse van Rensburg concerned the outstanding costs payment.

De Waal sent the agreement he received from Day, which also appeared to contain Van den Berg’s signature, to his former client, who informed him that it was not her signature on the document and that it was falsified.

Confronting Janse van Rensburg

Steyn wanted to know whether De Waal contacted Janse van Rensburg about the agreement, and De Waal said he had a 20-minute phone conversation with her on May 30, 2023.

When questioned about the review application, De Waal testified that Janse van Rensburg jumped around on the subject, did not give a clear answer, and failed to mention the settlement agreement.

She allegedly said Taylor was not happy with the outcome of the November proceedings and that he had instructed her to file a review application.

According to De Waal, she at first said she had not drafted it yet, but later in the conversation stated that she had drafted and sent it. “I did not know what was the truth,” he said.

ALSO READ: Zietta case delayed again as magistrate falls ill; new date set for February

De Waal testified that he waited until the end of the conversation before he questioned her on the settlement agreement that Day had sent him.

Janse van Rensburg replied that she was not sure what he was referring to, and he gave her an ultimatum to give him feedback by close of business to clarify.

He said that the next day he received an email from her with the same agreement attached, but it was unsigned and it had been altered, with case numbers removed and a paragraph added to the document referencing the payment of costs.

On May 31, Van den Berg informed him that she was laying a charge against Janse van Rensburg.

De Waal testified that attempts to obtain more information from Janse van Rensburg were unfruitful, although she had promised to send the documents he requested.

Cross-examination focuses on evidence

During cross-examination, defence attorney Marco Lamberti questioned De Waal on the possibility that the agreement and emails passed through many hands and that De Waal was not able to determine if it could have been altered, which De Waal accepted.

De Waal testified that he was sure the email and attachments in question were not sent from his office.

Lamberti asked De Waal whether he actually saw Janse van Rensburg fabricate any of it, to which De Waal said he had not. When Lamberti asked De Waal whether Janse van Rensburg ever said she forged or drafted a false document, he answered that no rational person would say that to an attorney.

In his questioning, Lamberti questioned De Waal on his knowledge of metadata, handwriting expertise or forensic knowledge, to which he replied that he was not a specialist in those fields.

Lamberti told De Waal that his testimony on how the document was falsified was based on surrounding circumstances, as he had no forensic evidence to prove how it was allegedly forged.

In re-examination, Steyn asked whether Janse van Rensburg had ever alerted De Waal that the document and email might have been created or changed by someone other than herself. De Waal said she had not. He told the court his firm suffered reputational harm by being embroiled in the case.

Secretary testifies about signature

Van Niekerk, De Waal’s secretary, testified that when shown the email and agreement, she immediately pointed out that it was not written in the style she used for professional emails and that words used in the document were not familiar to her.

She told the court she was angry and in disbelief that her signature was added to a document she had not seen, emailed or drafted.

Lamberti questioned Van Niekerk on her capabilities as a forensic and handwriting specialist or document examiner, to which she replied that she was none of these.

The case will resume this morning before Magistrate Jacob Mamabolo, when the investigating officer is expected to testify.