Nearly three years after Rita van den Berg laid charges against Zietta Janse van Rensburg, Magistrate Jacob Mamabolo heard testimony from the state’s first witnesses in the Malalane Periodical Court this week, reports Lowvelder.

The case dates back to 2023 when Van den Berg obtained a restraining order against Grant Taylor. The two were previously in a relationship.

Janse van Rensburg, the Malalane attorney who has since been suspended by the Legal Practice Council, was appointed by Taylor to facilitate the legal process and Schalk de Waal from Cronje, De Waal – Skhosana Inc acted on Van den Berg’s behalf.

Taylor was the state’s first witness. Senior prosecutor Tobie Steyn questioned him on the history of the events that unfolded.

Taylor testified he instructed Janse van Rensburg to approach De Waal to facilitate a settlement agreement between himself and Van den Berg.

He already had a cost order against him and offered to settle her legal fees so they could both ‘move on’.  At the end of May 2023, Taylor received an email from Janse van Rensburg with a signed agreement and a billing statement.

“What bothered me was Rita’s signature, as it didn’t look like hers.”

He further testified that he requested Morné Day from Seymore Du Toit and Basson to get hold of De Waal to confirm whether the agreement was legitimate.

Janse van Rensburg silent on forgery claims

Taylor said he contacted Janse van Rensburg via email and WhatsApp to discuss his concerns, but she did not reply to his queries. In early June, he ended his mandate with her.

He informally asked an attorney friend, Brian Denny, to communicate with Day on his behalf.

During cross-examination, Janse van Rensburg’s attorney, Marco Lamberti, asked Taylor whether he was an expert on the verification of a signature. Taylor said he accepted it was a layman’s opinion, but maintained that it had looked suspicious to him.

Janse van Rensburg’s attorney claims evidence is hearsay

Lamberti belaboured the point that most of Taylor’s testimony was hearsay because he did not witness the action when emails were sent, nor when signatures were placed on a document. Lamberti told Taylor that his testimony to the court remained hearsay as he did not directly confirm any of the claims with De Waal.

This, according to Lamberti, proved that Taylor could not beyond a reasonable doubt prove who signed the agreement and that Janse van Rensburg may not have known that it was false when she sent it to him.

Further questioning from Lamberti focused on the recusal of the magistrate in the harassment case. He questioned Taylor on claims that he had offered a bribe to the magistrate.

Taylor denied it and relayed, first in isiZulu and then English, that he was in the restroom when the magistrate came in. He said he told the magistrate that ‘the matter was costing him a lot of money and that he hoped that it would finish up that day’. 

According to his testimony, the magistrate did not offer reasons in open court why he recused himself. He said he later learnt from Janse van Rensburg that the magistrate would not be hearing the matter.  

Possibility of hacking

Lamberti questioned Taylor on whether he understood that emails could be hacked and that it was a forensic process to determine where an email came from.

During re-examination by Steyn, Lamberti’s continuous objections about the admissibility of Steyn’s questioning led to a heated debate. During cross-examination, Lamberti introduced new evidence, but when Steyn questioned Taylor on it, objections were raised.  

Steyn inferred that because Lamberti had introduced the new evidence, the state had the right to question it. However, Lamberti remained adamant that Steyn ‘wanted a second bite of the cherry’ by questioning Taylor on matters the defence could no longer cross-examine him on.

Plaintiff takes the stand

During Van den Berg’s testimony, she told the court that on June 21, 2023, she received an email from Denny with a signed settlement agreement and a billing statement attached to it.

When Van den Berg replied to Denny’s email, she was informed it came from Janse van Rensburg, who – according to the email trail – received it from De Waal’s office.

Van den Berg immediately contacted De Waal, who was no longer her attorney, and enquired about the so-called agreement.

She told the court that the signatures on the settlement agreement were not hers and that she had not seen the billing statement before that day.

According to her, all accounts with De Waal were settled when the harassment order was finalised.  

After establishing that the said agreement did not originate from De Waal’s offices, she decided to proceed with criminal charges.

Defence claims assumption

During cross-examination, Lamberti pounded on the fact that Van den Berg could provide no evidence to verify who had sent the original emails she received from Denny.

He said to her that she had little knowledge about the conversations between the attorneys and that she was not present when documentation was signed, so her conclusion that Janse van Rensburg committed forgery was based on assumption.

He said much of what she knew came from attorneys.

When Lamberti stated that Van den Berg did not have expert reports or metadata information and that there was no computer seizure or forensic evidence to prove her claims, she replied with ‘so you told me’.

The case was postponed to July 20 for continuation.

Breaking news at your fingertips… Follow Caxton Network News on Facebook and join our WhatsApp channel.

Nuus wat saakmaak. Volg Caxton Netwerk-nuus op Facebook en sluit aan by ons WhatsApp-kanaal.