Outa alleges that Myeni failed to disclose earnings arising from her directorships during her tenure at SAA.
Dudu Myeni was declared a delinquent director for life due to Outa. Photo: Neil McCartney
The estate of late former South African Airways (SAA) board chairperson Dudu Myeni has until next month to explain why the provisional sequestration order against the estate should not be made final.
In July 2023, the Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse NPC (Outa) approached the Pietermaritzburg High Court, seeking a provisional order for the sequestration of the estate of the late Myeni.
At the time, she opposed the application. She died on 14 June 2024, about a year after the proceedings were instituted.
The Master of the High Court in Durban then appointed an executrix of the deceased estate on 5 December 2024. The executrix continued to oppose Outa’s application. The court granted the provisional sequestration order on 14 August 2026.
The sequestration application originates in legal costs awarded to Outa following litigation instituted against Myeni arising from her tenure as chairperson of the SAA board and her involvement in the management of its affairs.
In 2020, Outa succeeded in its application for the Pretoria High Court to declare Myeni a delinquent director for life. Costs were awarded against her. However, she appealed the court’s decision to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA), collecting cost orders along the way.
Outa’s sequestration application
In its current litigation, Outa alleges that the deceased estate owes it at least R6.1 million.
While Myeni was still alive, Outa caused a warrant of execution to be issued against the Myeni’s movable property. The execution yielded assets worth only R42 917. It was common cause that, apart from the proceeds realised in execution, the deceased made sporadic payments towards the debt, amounting to no more than R94 400.
However, Outa alleges that Myeni failed to disclose earnings arising from her directorships during her tenure at SAA. It further alleges she received an additional amount of approximately R3.45 million in her capacity as a director of the Mhlathuze Water Board.
Outa further relied on information concerning cash payments of R300 000 and security upgrades to the Myeni’s immovable property valued at R486 514. Outa also alleged that Myeni would have received financial benefits in her capacity as chairperson of the Jacob G Zuma Foundation.
On this basis, Outa contends there are reasonable grounds to believe that assets or income may have been concealed. It argued that further investigations by a trustee may result in recovering assets or funds for the benefit of creditors.
Myeni’s opposition
In an affidavit in October 2023, Myeni disputed Outa’s claim and contended that the liability for the legal costs arising from the delinquency proceedings was attributable to her role as chairperson of SAA.
She relied on an indemnity arising from her service as a director of SAA and sought a stay or postponement of the sequestration application pending resolution of the dispute over SAA’s payment of her legal fees under its Memorandum of Incorporation.
Myeni also sought a postponement on grounds of equity and prejudice. She alleged that the delinquency order had materially impaired her ability to pursue business ventures and that she stood to lose her home if sequestration were granted. Myeni contended that the prejudice she would suffer substantially exceeded any prejudice that Outa, a non-profit organisation, would suffer.
She further said the sequestration application constituted an abuse of process and that Outa had instituted it for an ulterior purpose.
Liquidation and distribution account
The executrix submitted the first land and distribution (L&D) account to the court, which reflected a loan and claims. The claims consist mainly of medical expenses and expenses incurred in maintaining the deceased’s immovable property situated in Richards Bay.
The immovable property is reflected as having a value of approximately R4.9 million, against which a loan of R3 million is recorded.
After provision for the claims and expenses reflected in the L&D account, a balance of R1 791 229 was available for distribution to Myeni’s children, who are the beneficiaries of the estate. Each beneficiary, including the executrix, was reflected as being entitled to receive R597 076.
Outa’s claim, however, does not appear in the L&D account.
“The omission is significant. It indicates that, at the very least, the estate was administered without accounting for a substantial claim which was known to have been the subject of pending sequestration proceedings,” commented Judge Siwendu.
“This, coupled with the absence of evidence of a comprehensive investigation into the deceased’s affairs, provides a basis for concluding that further investigation may yield assets or information relevant to the creditors of the estate.”
Outa granted order
Judge Siwendu established that the existence of the debt giving rise to Outa’s claim was beyond dispute. It was also undisputed that Myeni made payments towards the debt, albeit sporadically.
The sequestration application was instituted while Myeni was still alive and remained pending at the time of her death. The sequestration application accordingly formed part of the circumstances confronting the deceased estate.
Since attempts to execute on movables yielded nominal results, Outa was entitled to bring these sequestration proceedings as a means of execution on the debt, said Judge Siwendu.
Myeni’s estate was placed under provisional sequestration in the hands of the Master of the High Court, Pietermaritzburg, KwaZulu-Natal.
The court also called on all other interested persons to show cause on 6 November 2026 why Myeni’s estate should not be placed under final sequestration.
