High Court Rejects Arthur Mafokate’s Bid to Save Home Amid Lottery Funds Investigation

Music Legend Ordered to Pay Legal Costs as Court Questions Lodge Purchase

South African music legend Arthur Mafokate’s bid to lift a preservation order in connection with his multimillion-rand lodge, La Villa Rosa, faced a setback as the high court rejected his request.

Arthur Mafokate

Arthur Mafokate’s bid to save his house has been denied

The court raised concerns over the source of funds for the luxury property, particularly focusing on money received from the National Lottery Commission (NLC).

The Special Investigating Unit (SIU) had obtained the preservation order in December 2022 while probing the possibility that Mafokate used funds from the NLC to purchase La Villa Rosa.

What’s going on with Arthur Mafokate

The court, in a 15-page judgment, ordered Mafokate to cover the legal costs of the SIU and the application.

The court found it puzzling how Mafokate could afford the upscale lodge without the assistance of funds from the NLC. Mafokate received a substantial sum of R9,300,000 from the NLC through his non-profit organization, SAADA, intended for programs benefiting the needy.

The judgment revealed that Arthur Mafokate received the funds in two tranches – R4,650,000 in 2014 and another R4,650,000 in 2015. Notably, the process of purchasing La Villa Rosa commenced shortly after the second payment.

After receiving the second tranche, SAADA made transfers totaling R4,517,421 to Roadshow Marketing CC, a company of which Mafokate is the sole member.

The money then moved to a Nedbank Home Loan account in four transfers amounting to R4.4 million.

A year later, the funds were transferred to Mafokate’s record label, 999 Music, and eventually used to acquire La Villa Rosa through a law firm in 2016.

Mafokate’s claim that he used profits from a concluded project to purchase the lodge was rejected by the court.

The judge highlighted his contractual obligation to return unused NLC funds and dismissed the argument that some money was sent to Roadshow Marketing for project-related work.

The judgment questioned Mafokate’s ability to afford the property, stating, “The respondent has not dealt with the money flow or given a simple explanation about where it procured the money to purchase the property in question.”

Also Read: Two conniving women lured man to his death

Share This