Malamulele sheriff claims to have ‘served’ dead man court papers six months after burial

A Malamulele sheriff is facing allegations of issuing questionable returns of service after court documents stated a man was personally served nearly five months after his death.

The return allegedly states Collen Mabasa was personally served with court documents on March 23 2026 on behalf of Ntsako Phyllis Mbhiza.

However, Mabasa died on October 31 2025, and was buried in November, months before the alleged service.

Takalani Margaret Ramanyimi, an attorney representing the law firm, said she discovered the discrepancy while preparing the matter for court.

“As I was discussing the matter with one of my colleagues, she happened to see the return of service from the sheriff and told me the respondent was from the same village as her and, to her knowledge, he passed on last year and was buried in November,” she said.

I followed up with his family and got the death certificate. It then became apparent it could not be possible the return of service is correct and that the same person was served in March 2026—  Takalani Margaret Ramanyimi, attorney

Ramanyimi said she contacted another villager who confirmed the death before approaching Mabasa’s family.

“I followed up with his family and got the death certificate. It then became apparent it could not be possible the return of service is correct and that the same person was served in March 2026.”

She said the discovery was particularly concerning because her firm had paid for the sheriff’s service.

“That’s what upset me the most. I am paying for something that did not happen and charging clients, which comes across as unscrupulous behaviour on my end,” she said.

“What does this say about our reputation when it comes to light that we charge clients for a service that did not happen? The sheriff is not only defrauding our clients but us too.”

Ramanyimi said she did not immediately raise the matter with the sheriff because another client had approached her with a similar concern.

The client, Bennett Maluleke, said he was shocked when his vehicle was repossessed on February 16 2026, two days after he had made a payment.

Maluleke acknowledged he had fallen about three months behind on his instalments but disputed receiving summons that were allegedly served on September 4 2025.

“They came and took the car, claiming I was in arrears of R48,000 and had ignored summons dated September 4 2025,” he said.

“But when they showed me the summons, they had taken them to the wrong address. They did not leave them there because I checked with the homeowner. They were not in receipt of them.”

Maluleke said he was subsequently told he needed to pay three months’ instalments in advance, amounting to R48,000, in addition to arrears and about R20,000 in legal fees.

He approached lawyers to challenge what he believed was unfair treatment.

Ramanyimi said the two matters raised concerns about the accuracy of returns issued by the sheriff’s office.

“It seems they issue a return of service when they have not done so, which I found alarming, and decided I will open a case of fraud and advised my clients to do the same,” she said.

It’s the first time I am learning of these complaints. I am not aware of this and did not do the return of service myself. It should be someone from my office who no longer works there—  Jeanet Mapfulagasha, sheriff of the court

The Malamulele sheriff of the court, Jeanet Mapfulagasha, said she was unaware of the complaints.

“It’s the first time I am learning of these complaints. I am not aware of this and did not do the return of service myself. It should be someone from my office who no longer works there,” she said.

The regulatory Board of Sheriffs also said it had not received complaints relating to the allegations.

Acting executive manager Simone Jones said any substantiated allegation involving the deliberate falsification or misrepresentation of service or execution of court process would be serious.

However, she stressed allegations had to be investigated and the sheriff must be given an opportunity to respond.

“Where a sheriff is found guilty of improper conduct, section 49 of the Sheriffs Act provides for sanctions which include a caution or reprimand, a fine, cancellation of the sheriff’s Fidelity Fund certificate, or a recommendation to the minister that the sheriff be removed from office or called on to resign,” Jones said.

She said the board received complaints about aspects of sheriffs’ conduct nationally, with Gauteng generally recording the highest volume because of concentrated litigation and sheriff activity.

Jones said complaints must be lodged using the prescribed form and supported by relevant documentation.

The prescribed complaint form and information on the complaints process are available from the Regulatory Board of Sheriffs.