Home | Business | MR. MATATA REFUSES TO CEDE SHARES

MR. MATATA REFUSES TO CEDE SHARES

Font size: Decrease font Enlarge font

MBABANE - The director of Mr. Matata has been taken to court for allegedly refusing to cede some of his shares to his fellow shareholders at Swazi-Syria.


This was after the shareholders of Swazi-Syria (Pty) Ltd had allegedly resolved that Christiaan Van Zyl Wege should give up certain shares to Cornelius and Juanita Delport but he allegedly failed to do so.
Wege is a businessman who resides in Pongola, South Africa and according to the court papers, he is a director and employee of Mr. Matata clothing chain store.


Juanita is the widow of Henno Louis Delport, who was one of the three shareholders at Swazi- Syria. She is also the executor of his estate and an interested party in the matter.
The resolution for Wege to cede 35 of his 133 shares was taken during a settlement agreement meeting after he allegedly breached an agreement to contribute towards the costs and operations of Swazi-Syria.


The veracity of these allegations is still to be tested in court. Plaintiffs in the matter are the executor of the estate of Henno, Cornelius and Juanita. They are represented by Robinson Bertram attorneys. Wege is yet to file his responding papers.


According to their particulars of claim, the background of the matter is that in October 2015 Henno, Cornelius and Wege allegedly concluded a verbal agreement as shareholders at Swazi-Syria to make financial contributions towards the company.
The purpose of the contributions was allegedly to develop agricultural land owned by the company by installing irrigation, building dams and planting macadamia trees.


Contribute


The shareholders were allegedly to contribute equally towards the costs and according to their shareholding.
Henno is alleged to have held 34 per cent of the 400 issued shares while both Cornelius and Wege’s shareholding was at 33 per cent respectively.
The plaintiffs stated in their papers that the financial contributions would be allegedly credited to their respective loan accounts in the company from time to time, bearing interest.


In the event that Swazi-Syria became profitable, they submitted that the company would repay the shareholders with interest.
Henno and Cornelius allegedly complied with their obligations in terms of the agreement. On the other hand, the Mr. Matata director and employee allegedly failed or refused to contribute as per the agreement.


This, according to the plaintiffs, resulted in a dispute between Wege and the other shareholders.
The dispute allegedly arose from the inequality and disproportionate financial burden and risk exposure Henno and Cornelius were exposed to as opposed to him (Wege).


The plaintiffs told the court that on November 2, 2016 the shareholders met in Pongola, and allegedly concluded a settlement agreement with a view to resolve the dispute.


They submitted that the terms of the agreement were that Wege would allegedly cede his right, title and interest in 18 of his shares at Swazi-Syria to Henno and 15 to Cornelius.
Henno died and his 134 shares were transferred to Juanita.


Wege is alleged to have refused to transfer the ceded shares to both Henno’s estate and Cornelius, alternatively to take any reasonable steps to the procurement of such transfer of shares, notwithstanding demand.


“In the premises aforesaid, the first and second plaintiff (executor of Henno’s estate and Cornelius) are entitle to specific performance of the first defendant’s (Wege) undertaken obligation to transfer the shares so ceded into their names respectively.”


As a result, the plaintiffs want the court to direct Wege to transfer his 18 ceded shares to the estate of Henno and 15 to Cornelius. They further prayed that Wege be ordered to sign and execute all necessary documents to enable the transfer.

They seek another order directing Swazi-Syria to register in its share register the estate of Henno and Cornelius as holders of the ceded shares. The plaintiffs applied that Wege be ordered to pay costs of the application. The matter is pending at the High Court.

Comments (0 posted):

Post your comment comment

Please enter the code you see in the image:

: EMPLOYMENT GRANT
Should government pay E1 500 unemployment grant?