She has been tried, convicted and sentenced to 28 years in jail but it appears Najwa Petersen’s woes are still not over. This time the woman behind the 2006 murder of her husband, music icon Taliep Petersen, is embroiled in a legal battle with John Riley – the man who fought for her freedom in 2007.
Riley, who with Herbert Raubenheimer SC, represented Petersen during her second bail application, is suing Petersen and her brothers, Shamil, Yusuf and Waleed Dirk in the Western Cape High Court for close to R1 million in legal fees.
Riley went to court last week, in the name of his law firm, Riley Incorporated, to apply for summary judgment, claiming that Petersen, her brothers and her son did not have a bona fide defence to his claims.
But on August 24, two days before the summary judgment application was supposed to have been heard, the brothers and Petersen filed opposing papers in which they disputed Riley’s claim and set out reasons as to why they should be granted leave to defend the action.
In an affidavit, Waleed Dirk denied that he or his siblings owed Riley any money, saying payments totalling R815 000 had been made to the John Riley Trust, through deposits or transfers, and that cheques were also made out to Riley’s firm.
He said the payments were made between October 2007 and February 2008 and that the family had proof of payment.
In addition, Dirk said that Petersen’s son, Sulaiman Effendi, had also made two R100 000 cash payments between August and December 2007.
He added that he was aware of instances in which his father had made cash payments to the Riley firm.
“I can recall one instance in which my late father had R200 000 in cash with him which I understood was paid over to the applicant,” he said.
He submitted that a debatement of account was necessary because it was evident that Riley had not accounted for payments received.
Dirk also questioned the reasonableness of the fees Riley had charged, saying he had claimed R42 000 for reading 901 pages “that allegedly took 35 hours”.
“No actual breakdown of the time spent on reading was given but that applicant contented himself with a round figure,” he said.
Dirk also raised concerns about R6 000 charged for five hours of perusal and research, R40 000 for services rendered over 35 hours and R9 000 for services rendered.
Dirk denied that he or his siblings had instructed Riley to represent Petersen – his father had given Riley his mandate.
He said Riley had called on him and his siblings to pay the fees after their father died.
There was, however, no agreement which stipulated that they were liable to do so.
In response to the allegation that they did not have a bona fide defence, Dirk said the memorandum attached to Riley’s summons, which gave a breakdown of the amount he was claiming, had not been taxed by the taxing master, who is required to determine the reasonableness of professional fees charged by legal practitioners.
Dirk added that while taxation was not a prerequisite to the institution of legal proceedings in such a matter, he had been advised that when a client insisted on taxation, it would constitute a defence.
Such a defence had to be raised in a document called a special plea, he said.
Dirk added that, should the summary judgment application be granted, it would effectively bar him and his siblings from filing a special plea insisting on taxation.
The summary judgment application was supposed to be heard on August 26, but was withdrawn.
The action will now be opposed by Petersen and her relatives.