Pensioner wins R12 million Lotto Plus 2 jackpot, plans to retire by the coast
The lucky winner's ticket was purchased through a banking app with a R20 wager, using the Quick Pick selection method on Wednesday, April 30, draw number 2537.
He said he was over the moon when he discovered he had won, but above all, he was deeply relieved.
'My wife and I have been facing significant medical challenges, and the financial burden has been overwhelming. Now, we'll finally be able to access the quality care we need. This win couldn't have come at a better time,' he said.
The winner explained that he first shared the news of his multimillion-rand win with his wife, and later with their son, who has been caring for them selflessly.
'My wife was completely thrilled, and my son, who has been looking after us with such grace, driving us to all our medical appointments willingly, was just so relieved that we will finally be able to afford better health care.'
Elaborating on how he planned to spend his winnings, he added: 'We are packing our bags and moving to the coast to spend the rest of our retirement there. I am so grateful that we will spend the golden years of our lives in peace and tranquility."
Charmaine Mabuza, the CEO of Ituba, the operator of the National Lottery, shared her sentiments on the winner's story, saying: 'This winner's story is very heartwarming. All National Lottery participants have their one big reason why they play. For this winner, he wanted to enjoy his golden years in peace without worrying about the basics. We are so glad that the Lotto Plus 2 jackpot will help him achieve that,' said Mabuza.
THE POST
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Citizen
2 days ago
- The Citizen
Limpopo megaproject sued over 'stolen' rocks
Subcontractor removed R12-million worth of white rock from private land Construction vehicles belonging to Tshiamiso Trading 135, photographed while excavating and loading road-building materials from Boetie Visser's old mine dumps. Photo supplied. A subcontractor on the multi-billion-rand Musina Makhado Special Economic Zone (MMSEZ) project removed R12-million worth of white rock, used to build roads, from a private property without permission. The state-owned company behind the MMSEZ is now being sued by the property owner. But MMSEZ has told the owner to collect the rocks at his own expense, before the end of the month. The subcontractor, Tshiamiso Trading, terminated its contract after receiving R50-million. The company has a track record of receiving controversial government contracts. The state-owned company behind the controversial Musina-Makhado Special Economic Zone (MMSEZ) in Limpopo is facing a R12-million lawsuit after a subcontractor removed approximately 35,000 cubic meters of white rock from a private property without permission. The MMSEZ is a multi-billion-rand megaproject launched by President Cyril Ramaphosa in 2018. More than R100-million has been spent on the project, but there are still no roads, electricity or water connections. It has now emerged that a company subcontracted to build roads, Tshiamiso Trading 135, removed R12-million worth of white rock from an old mine dump owned by Boetie Visser Groep Kontrakteurs, without permission. A subsequent investigation by MMSEZ SOC found that the removal of the road material by Tshiamiso is likely unlawful and criminal. But MMSEZ has not followed the investigator's recommendations and has rejected Visser's requests to be paid for the rocks or for the rocks to be returned. Visser has launched a court case in the Polokwane High Court to claim the R12-million he says is owed to him. But earlier this month, MMSEZ told Visser to collect the rocks at his own expense, denying that they were responsible for the removal of the rocks. Tshiamiso, which has a track record of receiving controversial government contracts, has since cancelled its R200-million contract, after receiving R50-million, citing standing time and ongoing court action. The company's director, Hlamani Bruce Mohlaba, insists the rocks were lawfully removed. Adding to the debacle is that part of the area on which this infrastructure is supposed to be built does not belong to the MMSEZ SOC, and the northern site has not been gazetted to allow for such a development. The MMSEZ has, on several occasions, been accused of bulldozing ahead with development plans, while ignoring legal concerns and the fact that no sustainable plans are in place to secure water on the sites. Unlawful mining In 2022, Tshiamiso was awarded a R200-million contract with MMSEZ to build internal roads and stormwater infrastructure at the MMSEZ's northern site at Artonvilla, north of Musina. They received an additional R100-million contract to build stormwater drainage. On 2 August 2023, the MMSEZ obtained a permit from the Department of Mineral Resources (DMR), which allowed Tshiamiso to start mining for white rock to be used for the roads. An old mine dump was fenced off by Tshiamiso, and the company started removing rocks and taking them to the construction site, about 2km away. But it appears the land, in fact, was owned by Boetie Visser, of Boetie Visser Groep Kontrakteurs CC. In January 2024, Visser contacted the MMSEZ, claiming that Tshiamiso was, without permission, removing crushed stone material that belonged to him. Visser sent several letters to the MMSEZ requesting that they halt the excavation, but Tshiamiso continued. Visser sent a proposal to the MMSEZ on 10 January, offering to sell the high-quality stones to the company. During a meeting between Visser and MMSEZ officials on 22 January, the matter was discussed, and a follow-up meeting was planned to reach an amicable resolution. On 25 January 2024, Visser's lawyer, advocate Elandré Bester, issued a memorandum about the unlawful removal of processed material from his old mine dumps. The memo highlighted that Visser is the lawful owner of the old mine dumps and alleged that the conduct of the MMSEZ and Tshiamiso constituted 'fraud, theft, and larceny'. MMSEZ investigates Officials from the MMSEZ's Legal Services and Infrastructure Development units visited the site on 6 February to investigate. They found it was 'highly unlikely' that Tshiamiso was extracting material from within the permitted area and that it was 'clear that the mining dumps… were outside the designated area of the borrow pit permit'. The MMSEZ investigators also met with Visser, who presented documents to prove he was the owner of the property and had his own mining permit for the white rocks. Visser reiterated his willingness to sell the stones, failing which they should be returned. At that stage, an estimated 35,000 cubic metres, at a value of about R12-million, of crushed stone had already been taken by Tshiamiso. It was agreed that the MMSEZ would provide Visser with feedback three days later, by 9 February 2024. The day after the site visit, Mashile Mokono, the MMSEZ's Senior Manager for Legal Services, compiled a report. It concluded that Tshiamiso could be charged for conducting illegal mining and committing a criminal offence, and said that the company should be held liable for damages. The report recommended that the MMSEZ urgently instruct Tshiamiso to cease excavation, enter into negotiations with Visser to purchase the collected material, and produce records of all materials taken. An estimated 35,000 cubic metres of 'white rock' road-building material stockpiled at Tshiamiso Trading's construction site, approximately two kilometres from Mr Boetie Visser's mine dump. Photo supplied Development stalled By 9 February 2024, the MMSEZ had not provided Visser with feedback as promised. This prompted Visser to apply for an urgent interdict in the Polokwane High Court to stop the unlawful removal and ensure the materials were recovered. But on 5 March, the matter was dismissed because of a lack of urgency. Visser is proceeding with the court action against MMSEZ, SLM Engineers (the consulting engineers overseeing the project) and Tshiamiso and wants to be paid R12-million for the materials removed from his land. In May this year, the MMSEZ board chairperson, Dr Nndweleni Mphephu, presented a report to the Limpopo legislature's portfolio committee on economic development. The report revealed that Tshiamiso had terminated its R200-million contract, citing non-payment of standing time and ongoing court action. Tshiamiso had already been paid R50-million by the time of termination. The report also revealed that the land earmarked for the project's northern site did not belong to the MMSEZ. The land belonged to the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform. Additionally, the area designated for the northern site had not yet been gazetted. 'Come and fetch your rocks' Visser has still not received any payment for the materials. 'I have done nothing wrong. They stole my stone, moved it unlawfully, and now I'm left with a bill and legal costs amounting to half a million rand. And I still don't have my stone back,' said Visser. Visser claims that SLM Engineers knew that Tshiamiso had been extracting rocks from the wrong area. In spite of his ongoing court action, Visser, on 15 July this year, received a letter from Tshifhiwa Irish Bologo, acting CEO of the MMSEZ, telling him to collect the rocks at his own expense before the end of the month. 'As you are aware, MMSEZ was not responsible for the removal of the white rock material from your site as that was done by Tshiamiso Trading without any direct or indirect involvement of MMSEZ,' stated Bologo. This left Visser outraged. 'I didn't put it there. They put it there – their contractors. Now I must transport it back at my own expense? … My offer was simple. I said, pay me, and I'll take my stone back. Now they're saying no, take it back at your own cost,' said Visser. In response to a media enquiry, Bologo said 'Visser is currently engaging with MMSEZ on the removal of the white rocks.' Bologo said that 'MMSEZ is not aware of any instructions by SLM to Tshiamiso Trading to collect the white rocks and therefore no action will be taken against SLM.' As for Tshiamiso, Bologo confirmed that the company still holds the R100-million contract for bulk sewer and waste treatment works construction. She confirmed that a new contractor will have to be appointed to complete the internal roads and stormwater infrastructure. In response to questions, Mohlaba, Tshiamiso's director, said: 'The removal of material occurred lawfully. The claims by Mr Visser presently form the subject matter of an application in the high court. A cost order has already been granted against Mr Visser and is in the process of execution. The application is still pending.' SLM Engineering said that part of the matter had been dismissed with costs by the court. 'Thus, in respect of the law, we cannot comment any further at the moment as this matter is before the court,' concluded Sello Matlakal, a director of SLM. (The cost order referred to by Mohlaba and Matlakala relates only to the urgent application that was dismissed for lack of urgency, not Visser's ongoing court case). A controversial contractor Mohlaba is no stranger to controversy. In 2019, Tshiamiso was taken to court by the Greater Tzaneen Municipality, which accused it of 'undue enrichment' after the company was awarded a R26-million contract for the construction of a 5.8km road and stormwater drainage system. Costs escalated rapidly, and construction was halted when Tshiamiso demanded further payments. It emerged in court that Tshiamiso had made errors in its bid calculations, which influenced the procurement process. The court ruled that the municipality's decision to award the tender to Tshiamiso was unlawful and constitutionally invalid from the outset. At the time, Tshiamiso was also entangled in other similar disputes. In 2016, the Makhado Municipality awarded the company contracts for the construction of two roads, where costs escalated and the projects were halted. Tshiamiso is listed as a legal contingency in the municipality's 2022/23 annual financial statements. At the time, the company was suing the municipality for R7.4-million in unpaid standing time, while the municipality lodged a counterclaim for R11.8-million, alleging 'undue enrichment'. The outcomes of these claims remain unknown. During the covid pandemic, Tshiamiso diversified into the medical supply sector. It was one of 42 suppliers contracted by the Limpopo provincial government to deliver masks and infrared thermometers. This article is published in association with the Limpopo Mirror/Zoutpansberger. This article was republished from GroundUp. Read the original here.
Daily Maverick
3 days ago
- Daily Maverick
The Financial Wellness Coach: How to cut estate duty and avoid heavy tax
Although it may seem like a good idea to transfer assets before death to reduce estate duty, doing so can actually result in higher tax costs. Question: My father is a widower and has just been diagnosed with cancer. The prognosis is not good and I'm helping him to tidy up his affairs to make the inheritance process easier. I am his only child. His assets consist of a house worth R4-million and various share investments worth R8-million. To reduce his estate duty bill, we are thinking of transferring the house to his only grandchild while he is still alive. advertisement Don't want to see this? Remove ads Does this make sense? Are there any other factors we should consider? Answer: Although it may seem like a good idea to transfer assets before death to reduce estate duty, doing so can actually result in higher tax costs during your father's lifetime. This is because of: • Immediate payment of capital gains tax (CGT) If your father transfers the house to his grandchild now, he will trigger a CGT event. He will need to pay tax on the growth in value of the property from when he bought it until the date of transfer. This could be substantial, especially if the house has appreciated significantly. • Donations tax Donating the house (valued at R4-million) to the grandchild will also trigger donations tax at 20% on the value above the R100,000 annual exemption. This means that your father will have to pay donations tax of R780,000. • Transfer costs The transfer will also incur costs such as conveyancing attorney fees, deeds office charges and transfer duty. As you can see, this approach would result in a high immediate tax burden (CGT plus donations tax plus fees) without actually reducing the tax payable, as donations tax is charged at the same rate as estate duty (20%). Additionally, the value of these taxes is paid during your father's lifetime, thereby reducing the capital available for investment and growth. advertisement Don't want to see this? Remove ads Alternative strategy An alternative solution that is worth considering is the following: Your father's estate is worth R12-million. He will get the R7-million estate duty abatement. This means that R5-million of his estate would be dutiable, which, at a rate of 20%, means that he would be paying R1-million in estate duty. One of the few options is to make use of disallowed retirement contributions. In short, if you buy a retirement annuity (RA) that is worth more than the lesser of R350,000 or 27.5% of your taxable income, the excess contributions are classed as disallowed contributions. If you buy a living annuity with that money and your beneficiaries elect to receive the proceeds of the annuity when you die, this amount will not trigger estate duty. Consider this scenario Your father buys an RA for R5-million (which is above the allowable deduction threshold); The excess contributions are classified as disallowed for tax purposes; He then converts this RA into a living annuity; and If your child (his grandchild) is listed as the beneficiary of the living annuity and chooses to receive the benefit as an income stream, no estate duty will be payable on this amount upon your father's death. This will result in the following: A saving of R1-million in estate duty, as the living annuity falls outside the estate for estate duty purposes; A saving of R200,000 in executor fees, as the living annuity has a beneficiary and need not be dealt with by the executor; The income paid to your child will be taxable in their hands, but since they will probably have little to no income while still young, the tax will be minimal, if any; and This structure can fund education, living expenses or long-term income. This is a fantastic way for your father's legacy to live on. Although it is never nice to think about death, a bit of planning can make a material difference to the amount of money that leaks from an estate when there is a death. advertisement Don't want to see this? Remove ads advertisement Don't want to see this? Remove ads I would strongly recommend that you speak to a suitably qualified professional before implementing any of these ideas, because I'm only seeing part of your financial picture and there may be other factors that need to be taken into account. DM Kenny Meiring is an independent financial adviser. Contact him on 082 856 0348 or at Send your questions to [email protected]. This story first appeared in our weekly Daily Maverick 168 newspaper, which is available countrywide for R35.
Daily Maverick
4 days ago
- Daily Maverick
How Vodacom and Maziv convinced everyone they had changed
All the details from the Vodacom/Maziv merger Competition Appeals Court hearing where R12bn in promises nearly caused a fender-bender. When senior counsel representing the Competition Commission, advocate Daniel Berger, said, 'My lord, as an officer of the court, I am duty bound to commit this statement to the public record,' I nearly drove my car off the road in shock. I was on my way from collecting my kids from school to drop my son off at his football practice, and things were getting spicy in the post-lunch session of Competition Appeals Court (CAC) proceedings. But how did we get here? The devil in the details Earlier this month, I reported on the Competition Commission's dramatic about-turn on the Vodacom/Maziv merger – how they went from fierce opposition to sudden support after the parties agreed to 'revised conditions'. Now, sitting in back-to-school traffic with a Teams call crackling through my car speakers, I got the full story of exactly what those conditions entail. And frankly, it's either the most comprehensive set of telecoms concessions in South African history, or the most elaborate corporate sleight of hand. The headline number that had everyone's attention was always going to be the money. Maziv has committed to a cumulative capital expenditure (capex) of 'at least R12-billion' over five years for network expansion and maintenance. That's 'two more (billions) than it was before,' as one counsel helpfully clarified for those of us trying to do math while navigating parking lot chaos. But here's where it gets interesting – and where my daughter, sitting in the passenger seat doing homework, started asking why I was shouting at my laptop again: of that R12-billion, R9-billion will be spent specifically on new fibre projects, with the commitment period restarted from April 2025. They've effectively put the 'clock back to zero' on their investment timeline. The kicker? The capex will be 'primarily but not exclusively spent on roll-out of infrastructure in low-income areas.' This isn't just about passing homes – it's about actually connecting them. The million homes promise Maziv has undertaken to pass at least one million homes in lower-income areas over five years, with at least 350,000 homes in what they're calling 'key areas' (think Alexandra Township), what counsel is calling the 'lowest of low-income homes'. My daughter is now asking what I mean when I keep muttering about 'homes passed'. How do you explain to a 14-year-old that a telecoms company just promised to wire up the townships? But the really fundamental concession – the one that had legal eagles in the virtual courtroom practically purring, is this: Maziv must provide 'sufficient capex to ensure that every home passed in terms of the commitments that wishes to be connected on the prevailing terms and conditions for connection is connected' for five years. What this means They can't just run fibre past your house in Alex and then charge you R2,000 to actually connect. They have to budget for actual connections, not just the theatrical gesture of running cables down your street.. Boardroom chess The shareholding arrangements have been tweaked in ways that would make any corporate governance lawyer proud. Vodacom still gets its initial 30% co-controlling equity interest, but the path to 40% just became significantly more complicated. Under the revised conditions, which now meet muster for Compcom sign-off, 'Vodacom can't increase its shareholding beyond 34.9% without the consent of the Commission.' And if it wants to move to more direct forms of control, it'll need fresh merger approval entirely. I gaze directly into the sun, trying to follow the technical submissions about board composition. All parties are now trying to explain, much to the chagrin of the merging parties, to Judge President Norman Manoim that the 'extra four percent' shareholding isn't the nothingburger he keeps making it out to be. You see, the composition of the board has been restructured since the Competition Tribunal blocked the deal: seven Maziv directors, seven Vodacom directors, and now four independent directors (up from three), plus CEO/CFO. Crucially, 'Vodacom will not be entitled to veto their appointment' of independent directors. It's corporate governance with training wheels, designed to address exactly the control concerns that got this deal prohibited in the first place. Clearing the blockade The legal arguments against the Competition Tribunal's original prohibition are where this hearing gets properly spicy. Advocate Jerome Wilson, representing the merging parties, spent considerable time arguing that the tribunal had 'misdirected itself' through what he called 'internal mistrust' and 'cynicism or bias'. The tribunal, Wilson argued, relied on 'extraordinary allegations' about alleged past collusion between Vodacom and MTN from media reports dating back to 1994 – allegations that were never properly tested in proceedings. This context, he said, apparently 'infected the Tribunal's entire reasoning process'. Wilson's most damning critique focused on the tribunal's 'counterfactual analysis', basically, what would happen without the merger. The tribunal assumed Vodacom would become a very significant fibre player in low-income areas and that other players would fill any investment gap. The evidence? A Dark Fibre Africa representative testimony saying it would take 'at least three years for me to find an investor and I cannot guarantee you that I would find one', and that 'nobody else has come up since 2015' other than Vodacom. The tribunal's reliance on speculation rather than what Wilson calls 'real world outcomes' was deemed a fundamental error. But this does not erase the other issues. The maths starts math-thing While lawyers argued legal theory, the market realities are crazy. Pre-merger, Maziv (through Vumatel) commanded 32% of the fibre-to-the-home (FTTH) market with 2,050,000 homes passed. Vodacom's standalone fibre network? A measly 2.5% with 158,000 homes. Post-merger, the combined entity will control 34.5% of homes passed (2,208,000) and 34.4% of homes connected (885,000). That makes them significantly larger than Telkom's Openserve at 20.9% of homes passed. I explain to my now fully engaged teenager that this deal is essentially creating a duopoly in South Africa's wholesale fibre market: Vodacom-Maziv versus Openserve, with everyone else scrambling for scraps. Which was the original Compcom opposition point, until the merging parties sweetened the deal to get government buy-in – the DTIC and communications minister both supported the appeal. Honeypot dealmaking These post-tribunal public interest commitments read like a policymaking wet dream. Free gigabit per second fibre connections for all public schools, libraries, and clinics passed by the FTTH network roll-out. More police stations getting Fixed Wireless Access (FWA) products. Enhanced employee share ownership plans. Vodacom has also committed to achieving 90% 5G population coverage within five years, with obligations to connect additional FWA users that will require them to 'price their FWA competitively'. For pricing protection, FTTH can't increase prices for the lowest-price options for two years, and there can be 'no forced upgrades' for five years – protecting lower-income consumers from being pushed on to more expensive packages. You see, the tribunal's concern was that Vodacom's veto rights could allow it to force Maziv to act against its profit-maximising interests – essentially, to favour Vodacom over other wholesale customers. The merging parties argued this was a 'fundamental conceptual error'. Vodacom would account for 'less than 20% of Maziv's revenues', so any theoretical side payments or compensation for non-profit-maximising behaviour simply wouldn't make economic sense. The burden of debt What's often lost in the regulatory theatre is why Maziv needed this deal in the first place. CIVH, Maziv's parent company (owned by Remgro), was carrying R19.5-billion in debt by mid-2024. This merger provides the capital injection needed to fund the next phase of fibre expansion, particularly into areas where the business case is marginal. The 'lessening of competition' identified by the tribunal primarily affected 'certain wealthier households' – about 2,000 to 7,500 homes, according to the merging parties. They argued this was insignificant when weighed against connecting a million low-income homes. One genuinely innovative aspect of the revised conditions is an enhanced 'fast-track interim relief process' for foreclosure concerns. This allows an expert to make binding determinations while formal investigations are under way, 'taking the load off the commission' for complex, time-sensitive issues. It's regulatory innovation born from regulatory failure. A recognition that the traditional competition processes aren't nimble enough for rapidly evolving telecoms markets. Concession is a town in Zimbabwe As I finally switch off the Teams call, the bigger picture comes into focus. Compcom's about-turn isn't just about accepting better conditions, it's about accepting that South Africa's digital infrastructure reality requires uncomfortable compromises. The revised deal creates what's being called a 'fibre powerhouse with unparalleled market scale' while theoretically addressing competition and public interest concerns. Whether those theoretical protections work in practice remains to be seen. But here's the uncomfortable truth that emerged from the proceedings: the same companies we don't trust to compete fairly are the only ones with deep enough pockets to bridge our digital divide. In a country where millions still lack basic connectivity, that might be a trade-off we're willing to make. DM
