Home | News | ECSPONENT INVESTORS: WHEN WILL WE GET OUR MONEY

ECSPONENT INVESTORS: WHEN WILL WE GET OUR MONEY

22/06/2024 07:22:00 Kwanele Dlamini

Font size:

MBABANE – “My son, how long after this judgment will we get our money? The wait has been unbearable.”

One of the investors in Ecsponent Eswatini, now known as Eswatini Investment Group (ESWIG) posed this question to this reporter yesterday at the High Court, where the investors were attending yet another of their matters. This was the matter in which they sought an order to attach assets belonging to Dave Van Niekerk and Edwin Soonius. Van Niekerk and Soonius are among the parties that were ordered to pay the investors’ E335 240 000 on Thursday by Judge Khontaphi Manzini.

Others are Ecsponent Limited South Africa, GetBucks (Pty) Limited South Africa and Anthony Hay. The application to attach their assets depended on the matter in which the investors were demanding the payment of their investment in ESWIG. The order to attach being sought by ESWIG, was pending finalisation of the matter in which they obtained the default judgment that they be paid.

Since that matter was concluded, the application to attach, in which an interim order had been granted in December 2023, became academic as a result. Judge Zonke Magagula discharged the interim order and removed the matter from the court roll. He ordered that each party must pay its own costs. Over 100 of the investors, buoyed by the judgment directing that they should be paid their lost investments, descended to the High Court. A majority of them are senior citizens. The common question they asked was when they would receive their monies, now that the High Court has ordered that the respondents should pay the E335 240 000 they invested.

Hard

“I am asking this question because I invested everything with the hope that I would get something in the end. Just take a look at me. Ask anyone who knew me before. I am sure people I knew from way back will have a hard time recognising me. This is not what I used to be like. The disappearance of our monies took a serious toll on me. I am struggling to make ends meet. I am raising children and sometimes I have no idea what we will eat at home. “I am living under enormous stress. Sometimes you feel it’s better to die but then again, what is going to happen to my dependants? Who is going to take care of them? Yemntfwanami, do the people who stole our money have a soul? Ase usibutele (find out for us)? I will not be surprised if they appeal this decision,” said one of the elderly women, who identified herself as Make Matsebula.

Themba Lukhele (63) of Mpolonjeni, said he would not mind getting back what he invested. He said he had suffered enough and was prepared to forgo the interest he was entitled to.
“You see, when you have dependants, it’s even harder. It difficult to sleep at night not knowing what you will give them the following day. Our children are suffering because of the people who stole our money,” he said. Lukhele said it bothered him that the Financial Services Regulatory Authority (FSRA), instead of being on the investors’ side, decided to oppose their application to be paid. “How do you describe this? FSRA granted these people a licence to collect our monies. Hundreds of millions of our investment disappeared at the hands that the FSRA permitted to collect money from members of the public. Should FSRA not be on our side and help us to get back our money. Why did FSRA oppose us when we demanded our money from these people,” Lukhele wondered.

Impact

Lawyer Sidumo Mdladla, who appeared on behalf of ESWIG, told the court yesterday that: “As we speak, the impact of what actually happened is hitting hard. As we speak, last week another of the investors passed away.” Mdladla submitted that the matters need to be finalised at some point. Mdladla was addressing the court on what should happen to the matter in which ESWIG wanted to attach Van Niekerk and Soonius’ assets, pending the matter that was concluded on Thursday, where Judge Manzini granted a default judgment for the payment of the E335 240 000 to ESWIG. Judge Magagula, who was seized with the application to attach, asked what the point of continuing with the matter was, since Judge Manzini had granted the default judgment in the matter the former one hinged on. The parties addressed the court on whether the interim order granted in December last year to attach the South African’s property should be discharged or extended.

Advocate Thakane Mofokeng, who was appearing on the instruction of Mdladla of S.V. Mdladla and Associates, informed the court that the respondents wanted to keep this matter alive by extending the operation of the interim order, while they seek a rescission of Judge Manzini’s judgment. “Why is it alive because it was sought pending finalisation of the matter (decided by Judge Manzini), which has been finalised yesterday (Thursday)? Extending the rule is of no use once the matter has been finalised. Rather confirm it; that’s our position,” said Advocate Mofokeng.

On the other hand, Advocate Louis Hollander, who appeared for Van Niekerk and Soonius, argued that the December 2023 interim order to attach his client’s assets, should be discharged. He agreed with the applicants that the order was pending finalisation of the matter that was decided by Judge Manzini. “We support the discharge of the order,’ said Advocate Hollander.
Judge Magagula discharged the order and removed the matter from the court roll, and each party is to pay its own costs.