- The Pretoria High Court refused Advocate Luzelle Adams leave to appeal findings linked to Mosiuoa Lekota’s mental incapacity and finances.
- The judge found Adams knew Lekota was mentally incapable from at least 25 May 2025, but continued transacting on his bank accounts.
- The court again ordered Adams to pay punitive legal costs, including counsel’s fees on Scale C.
The High Court in Pretoria has dismissed Advocate Luzelle Adams’ application for leave to appeal in the case involving the late COPE leader Mosiuoa Lekota’s mental capacity and the handling of his finances during the final months of his life.
ALSO READ: Mosiuoa Lekota declared mentally incapable as court exposes control battle over his estate
Judge A Millar delivered the ruling on 18 May 2026, refusing leave to appeal against an earlier judgment that declared Lekota mentally incapable of managing his affairs from 25 May 2025 until his death on 4 March 2026.
The earlier judgment also found Adams, a former COPE MP, continued exercising control over Lekota’s finances despite knowing he was incapable of managing his own affairs.
The case was brought by Lekota’s wife, Ntombehle Lekota, to secure access to medical information and clarity regarding the administration of the couple’s joint estate.
The pair had been married in community of property since 1975, although they had lived apart for years, with the wife remaining in Bloemfontein while Lekota stayed in Gauteng. During that time, Lekota entered into a relationship with Adams, with whom he had a child.
Judge says Adams knew of incapacity
In refusing leave to appeal, Judge Millar said there was no dispute that Lekota had been mentally incapable of managing his affairs from at least 25 May 2025. In the judgment, the court found Adams was fully aware of Lekota’s condition because she lived with him and accompanied him to medical appointments.
The judgment also revisited findings from the earlier proceedings that Adams attempted to conceal the extent of Lekota’s condition “for selfish reasons”.
Court focuses on joint estate
A major issue in the litigation was the financial management of the joint estate shared by Lekota and his wife. The court stressed that Mrs Lekota retained a direct legal interest in the administration of the estate and rejected arguments suggesting the matter became irrelevant after Lekota’s death.
It further found that Adams continued transacting on Lekota’s accounts for nearly nine months despite knowing he lacked legal capacity.
Judge Millar said, “She continued transacting on his accounts, well knowing that, as a matter of law, any authority he may have given her to do so had lapsed.”
The judgment also referred to findings that Adams emptied Lekota’s bank account while negotiations regarding the appointment of an interim curator bonis were underway.
The curator had reported, and that report had revealed the extent to which Adams had transacted on the account and the fact that she had mala fide emptied Lekota’s bank account on the day that she was agreeing to the order appointing the interim curator bonis.
Appeal arguments rejected
Adams argued that the declaratory order should not have been granted because the curator had effectively ceased to exist following Lekota’s death. She also argued the court had misconstrued the nature of the original proceedings. Judge Millar rejected both arguments.
The judge held that the declaratory order remained important for the winding up of the joint estate and said the application was never limited only to Rule 57 proceedings relating to mental incapacity. Judge Millar also dismissed Adams’ challenge to the costs order.
The judge wrote, “The contention that costs ought not to have been awarded against her in circumstances where her mala fide conduct had been brought to the attention of the court is simply unsustainable.”
Applying Section 17 of the Superior Courts Act, the court concluded there was no reasonable prospect another court would reach a different outcome.
Judge Millar wrote, “I am not persuaded that another court would come to a different conclusion or that there is some other compelling reason why leave to appeal should be granted.”
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed with attorney and client costs, including the costs of counsel on Scale C.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
