SWAZI BOY, SA COMPANY TENT SAGA CONTINUES

BY THEmBELANI NHLABATSI

MBABANE - The strife between Swazi Boy and M&M Hiring Marquecc is far from over.
After Swazi Boy Entertainment stable obtained an order to attach a truck and a marquee belonging to a South African company David Naidoo, who claims to be the owner of the truck, has filed an application to have it released.

In the application, he said the second, which in this case is the Royal Eswatini Police and fourth respondent being the Attorney General, were unknown to him as he had never had any dealings with them.
He said the only person who was known to him was one Lehlohonolo Moeketsi, who was a director of the first respondent (Unlimited FAM (PTY) LTD).

Dealings

“I wish to state that our company did have dealings with the said Moeketsi but he did not come personally to our business premises in Alberton, Johannesburg in the Republic of South Africa as all dealings were by telephone,” he said. He alleged that the marquee was ordered by Moeketsi on and around December 20, 2019 which was delivered to his chosen destination at Matsapha in Eswatini after a E50 000 was paid for its delivery.

“The marquee was then delivered in the kingdom on December 23, 2019 and was erected immediately thereafter. I am advised by the driver of the truck which ferried the marquee that the tent was erected by the applicants in the main application for the intended crossover event held on December 31, 2019,” he said.

It is worth noting that in the application, Naidoo stated that the truck did not belong to the first respondent and was instead registered under his daughter’s name, Natasha Naidoo, who also authorised the vehicle leaving their premises as well as ensuring that the motor vehicle had no challenges crossing the border.
He also stated that he verily believed that the applicant in the main could not attach property that did not belong to the person with whom they did not have a claim against and instead their intended recovery action could only be against the first respondent and Moeketsi. This comes after the South African company, Unlimited FAM (PTY) Limited, allegedly delivered a wrong marquee to the entertainment stable, which the latter had sourced from it to use for the crossover event at Esibayeni Lodge.

 In its urgent application, Swazi Boy Entertainment informed the court that the first respondent (Unlimited Fam (PTY) Limited) delivered a wrong marquee far less in size than the glass marquee agreed upon.

In his founding affidavit, the applicant’s (Swazi Boy Entertainment) Director, Mthunzi Zwane, narrated that on December 12, 2019, the applicant duly represented by him and the respondent by Moeketsi concluded an agreement. He alleged that in terms of the agreement, the applicant sourced for the provision of a marquee. Zwane told the court that the respondent accepted the said offer and hence an agreement between the parties was concluded.
These are allegations contained in an affidavit whose veracity is still to be tested in court and the respondent is yet to file its papers in the event it is disputing the allegations against it.

“The material terms of the agreement between the parties were, inter alia, that the respondent would provide the applicant with a marquee at a cost of E77 500 and upon payment of the aforementioned amount of money,” submitted Zwane.
According to Zwane the sum of E77 500 was quoted by the respondent and the applicant duly discharged its obligation in terms of the agreement and paid the amount in full.

“In breach of the agreement between the parties, the respondent has failed to discharge its obligation and failed to deliver as agreed inter parties leaving the applicant with no other remedy save to approach the High Court,” contended the director of Swazi Boy Entertainment.

He averred that the reason the applicant moved the application ex parte (without the knowledge of the other party) was because the respondent, in an attempt to deliver, what was agreed upon delivered a wrong marquee. Zwane submitted that as a result of the alleged wrong delivery, the applicant has been left out of pocket because it had to source among other things, flooring which was paid for, decoration, labour to assisting in mounting the marquee as well as meals and lodging for the respondent’s employees. 

He told the court that it was common cause that the applicant’s main business was in the entertainment industry. Zwane argued that the applicant had a clear right to be compensated for the damages (which are still to be quantified) for the failure by the respondent to discharge its obligation between the parties.

“As stated above, the applicant will suffer irreparable harm if the respondent is allowed to remove its only assets from the jurisdiction of the court  hence it is necessary that an order for an interdict of the said assets be granted pending institution and finalisation of the intended recovery action,” contended Zwane.
He further submitted that all efforts made to have the matter resolved amicably had failed and the respondent was now in the process of going back to the Republic of South Africa.

The interim order directing a deputy sheriff to attach the truck and the alleged wrong tent that was delivered to Swazi Boy Entertainment was granted by Judge Maxine Langwenya.

Others respondents in the matter are the Royal Eswatini Police Services and the Ministry of Home Affairs (Immigration Department).
Swazi Boy Entertainment was represented by Linda Dlamini from Linda Dlamini and Associates. The matter is still pending in court.

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: