SWEET CLAIMANTS INVITED TO FURNISH LIQUIDATOR WITH DETAILS

MBABANE – Sakimo Group (Pty) Ltd has invited SWEET claimants or investors to furnish it with their details not later than February 17, 2023.

Sakimo Group is the liquidator of Swaziland Women Economic Empowerment Trust. On December 7, 2022, High Court Judge Mzwandile Fakudze issued a final order placing SWEET under liquidation and appointing Moazam Ali Fakey as the liquidator.

A notice that has been issued by Sakimo Group states that the claimants are to send by SMS, details such as their name, identity number, mobile phone contact number and SWEET or SBS Account number. The other information required by the liquidator is the total outstanding amount invested in SWEET, email address (if available) and physical address.

The notice also states: “Please retain proof of your investment in SWEET as we may require submission thereof for final claim verification procedures.” The cellphone numbers to send the required information are 7906 3045 and 7806 3037. These mobile phone numbers, according to the notice, only accept SMSs and calls will not be answered.
SWEET, whose patron is Her Majesty the Queen Mother, was established as one of the national economic empowerment initiatives that emanated from Eswatini Women Decade Plan of Action 2010.

Demanding

Members of SWEET had been demanding that the people responsible for collecting their monies should be taken to task and their dues be returned. Fakey and the Central Bank of Eswatini (CBE), in a joint application to wind-up the company (SWEET), disclosed that SWEET was not registered. Fakey is the Director of the South African consultancy firm, Sakimo Group (PTY) Ltd that has been given the task to commence the liquidation process of SWEET.  

The non-registration of SWEET was confirmed by the Registrar of Companies Msebe Malinga in a correspondence annexed to the application for liquidation. In the application for liquidation, the court was informed that SWEET does not exist in the register of companies and non-profit making associations registered in the Kingdom of Eswatini. The liquidator and CBE submitted that: “It appears that SWEET is simply a voluntarily association of women for economic empowerment.”

They further submitted that the petitioner’s (SWEET) nature of business was not spelt out in any document.
“SWEET is neither a building society nor a co-operative society or an insurance company,” averred the bank and the liquidator.

Complaining

Giving background of the matter, Fakey narrated to the court that in 2019, CBE as the regulator of the banking industry, received a number of complaints from women who had invested with SWEET. According to the liquidator, the women were complaining about that they were not getting back their investments and that SWEET was involved in banking business without a licence.  He said this prompted CBE, in conjunction with the Financial Services Regulatory Authority (FSRA), to commence investigations into these worrying complaints.

Fakey submitted that CBE and FSRA officials then proceeded to the offices of SWEET and discovered that indeed it was taking deposits from its members.“This was a banking business which had to be done by a person having been granted a licence by the Central Bank of Eswatini. SWEET was, therefore, in breach of the law and certain decisions had to be taken by the central bank after getting approval from the authorities of the kingdom,” submitted the liquidator.  

Approvals

He alleged that the process had taken a while to get the approvals for the CBE to act in terms of the Financial Institutions Act, 2005. Fakey brought it to the attention of the court that it had also been discovered that SWEET was insolvent and owed a number of creditors for monies loaned. He said this was the other reason the decision was taken to liquidate SWEET. According to Fakey, acting in terms of Section 8(2) of the Act, CBE appointed Sakimo Group PTY Limited to be liquidators of SWEET.

“I submit that the liquidator has the capacity, personnel and skill to handle liquidation to the satisfaction of all interested parties. They were appointed after CBE had advertised the works to be undertaken and they were the best evaluated tenderer,” reads part of the application.  The court was told that CBE also placed a notice in the office of SWEET that it was now under liquidation.

Insolvency

It was further the petitioner’s submissions that it was CBE’s preliminary findings that SWEET’s liabilities exceeded its assets, therefore, it was insolvent and to attempt to pay one creditor above another would be a deed of insolvency.
“CBE’s fear is that if it does not liquidate the petitioner, there is a likelihood that some creditors who had instituted legal proceedings against the petitioner will proceed to attach, as some have done so, resulting in an undue preference in their favour at the expense and prejudice of other creditors,” averred the liquidator and the bank.
The petitioner was represented by lawyer from Robinson Bertram in Mbabane.

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: