….as court dismisses Sello-Mafatle’s case
Moorosi Tsiane
Prominent lawyer, Advocate Tiisetso Sello-Mafatle, has failed in her bid to place her family’s vast commercial interests under judicial management.
Advocate Sello-Mafatle had sought the judicial management order after accusing her husband, Teboho Mafatle, of dissipating the family’s business resources on a string of mistresses and other activities she had not consented to.
But the High Court has begged to differ with the top lawyer.
Its view is that the couple’s issues stem more from marital disputes other than the alleged mismanagement of the businesses by Mr Mafatle.
In a judgment delivered on 13 July 2026, Justice Moneuoa Kopo ruled that Adv Sello-Mafatle had failed to prove that the seven family-owned companies were being mismanaged or stripped of assets. Instead, the court found that the disputes stemmed from the breakdown of the couple’s marriage rather than any corporate crisis.
Justice Kopo discharged an earlier provisional order placing the companies under judicial management, saying the application relied largely on hearsay and allegations that could not be resolved on affidavit evidence.
Adv Sello-Mafatle had asked the Commercial Division of the High Court to assume control of seven companies jointly owned with her husband, Mr Mafatle, alleging that he had diverted company funds and assets to finance lavish lifestyles for women she claimed were his mistresses while secretly amassing wealth behind her back.
She alleged that Mr Mafatle, who oversaw the day-to-day operations of the businesses, used company money to buy properties, vehicles and other luxury items for the women while excluding her from the management of businesses they had built together over many years.
The companies at the centre of the dispute are Thabeng Hotel, Exo Expo Trailers (Pty) Ltd, Rebang Investment (Pty) Ltd, Trailerland (Pty) Ltd, In-Exit Express (Pty) Ltd, Leralleng Investment (Pty) Ltd and Sea-Point Trailers & Equipment Hire (Pty) Ltd.
On 1 June 2026, Justice Moroke Mokhesi had granted an interim order placing the companies under provisional judicial management and appointed chartered accountant Api Setsabi and attorney Qhalehang Letsika to investigate their financial affairs.
Mr Mafatle successfully challenged that order through his lawyer, Adv Letsatsi Masoeu, arguing that he had been condemned without being heard and that there was no evidence the companies were financially distressed or being mismanaged.
He denied allegations of adultery, misuse of company funds and financial misconduct, accusing his wife of attempting to turn a failing marriage into a commercial dispute.
Mr Mafatle had instead accused Adv Sello-Mafatle of improperly handling company funds. He alleged that M500 000 earmarked for renovations and the construction of a swimming pool at Thabeng Hotel had been transferred into her personal account and the project was never undertaken. He further alleged that she transferred M225 000 from the hotel’s accounts into her personal account between August 2025 and May 2026.
In dismissing the application, Justice Kopo found that Adv Sello-Mafatle’s allegations were largely unsupported by evidence, while Mr Mafatle had produced financial records indicating that the companies remained profitable.
“The nub of the applicant’s case is that her husband is highly promiscuous and is using the assets of the matrimonial home to finance his promiscuity,” Justice Kopo said.
The judge noted that Mr Mafatle had categorically denied the allegations and had produced evidence showing the companies were financially sound.
“According to Mr Mafatle the companies are doing well, and he had not misused their assets. It has not been denied that the companies are doing well. Adv Sello-Mafatle’s case crumbled as a result.”
Justice Kopo held that the Commercial Court could not be used to resolve what was essentially a matrimonial dispute.
“What becomes apparent is that the applicant is anticipating a division of the joint estate and seeks to use the commercial procedure to solve a matrimonial dispute. It is sad that parties are no longer in harmony in their matrimonial home. It is, however, difficult for me to fathom entangling such a matrimonial conundrum through a commercial setting.”
The judge also ruled that the Director General of the Directorate on Corruption and Economic Offences (DCEO) had been improperly joined to the proceedings because the office had no direct legal interest in the matter.
He concluded that Adv Sello-Mafatle had failed to satisfy the legal requirements for placing the companies under judicial management.
“Adv Sello-Mafatle has not made out a case for a provisional order of judicial management. She relies on hearsay evidence that even falls off with the explanation of Mr Mafatle… Therefore the rule is discharged and the application for judicial management is dismissed.”