REVEALED: 75 ECSPONENT INVESTORS DEAD

MBABANE – To date, at least 75 investors in Ecsponent Eswatini, now Eswatini Investment Group Limited (ESWIG), have died without receiving their invested monies or interest thereto.

The deaths, according to the Chairman of the Investor Relations Committee (IRC), Norman Dlamini of Mvembili, were as a result of health conditions, such as stroke attacks and others, suffered by the investors, some of who had invested their pension payouts. Last Thursday, Judge Khontaphi Manzini of the Commercial Court Division of the High Court, issued a default judgment, ordering Dave Van Niekerk, Dave Soonius, Ecsponent Limited South Africa, GetBucks (Pty) Ltd South Africa and Anton Hay to pay ESWIG Limited, the investors and Ligagu Investments (Pty) Ltd a sum of E335 240 000. This amount is part of the E406 932 005.55 that members of the public and some institutions invested in ESWIG.

A default judgment is granted against a defendant who fails to defend a claim against him/her. The other defendants in the matter, which are the Financial Services Regulatory Authority (FSRA), former FSRA CEO Sandile Dlamini and Lindiwe Vilakati, are opposed to being ordered to pay the investors’ lost investment, hence no order against them was issued. In an application filed by ESWIG, Ligagu and the investors for leave to file a further affidavit, the IRC chairman alleged that the investors suffered huge losses from the direct and indirect actions of the FSRA and other respondents.

He said instead of assisting the investors, FSRA failed to take into consideration the crisp and painful fact that its conduct had allegedly resulted in over 60 deaths and stroke attacks over and above high poverty among the elderly investors, who had invested their pension. The number of deaths, according to an anonymous source who deals with issues of the investors, has increased to about 75 so far.  

Lost

Norman told the court that the high poverty had further minimised movement of some of the investors and as a result, it was resolved that the IRC be formed to be the voice of all the investors combined, in their effort to recover the money lost by each one of them. One investor, according to their legal representative, Sidumo Mdladla of S.V. Mdladla and Associates, died the previous week. Mdladla was addressing the High Court on Friday, when Judge Zonke Magagula discharged the interim order in favour of ESWIG, to attach Van Niekerk and Soonius’s assets, because the order was granted pending finalisation of the matter in which they (Van Niekerk and Soonius), as well as Ecsponent South Africa, GetBucks South Africa and Hay, were ordered to pay E335 240 000 invested in ESWIG by members of the public and certain institutions.

Over 100 investors were present in court on Friday. The order to pay their lost investments had been issued the previous day. Since some of the investors have died, they were represented by their children or grandchildren or other representatives. Also, those who were too ill to travel to the High Court, sent family members to attend the court proceedings on their behalf.
Sithembile Sihlongonyane (28), who was present in court on Friday, said she attended the court proceedings on behalf of her mother, who died in October 2023. “All the years that I have lived with my mother, the last years of her life were a living hell. I don’t know if she was blaming herself for investing her whole pension payout. We tried to comfort her that it was not her fault, because she believed that she would reap the fruits of her investment. We all thought that it was proper to invest in Ecsponent. What happened caught us by complete surprise. It really took a toll on my mother. We were struggling but somehow managed to survive day after day.

Torment

“When my mother died, part of me felt that she was now free from the torment of this issue that seems to never end. I am here for her. She was really hoping that the matter would come to an end sooner and get back her investment, even without any interest. There are many others in this situation,” Sihlongonyane narrated. Thulasizwe Dludlu said he was sent by her bedridden uncle, who suffered a stroke early in 2023. He said he was raised by his uncle after his mother died.  According to Dludlu, life took a complete turn for his uncle when the news broke that their investments in ESWIG had ‘disappeared’. He gradually became withdrawn and kept to himself most of the time. “He had just retired when he made the investment. It was obvious that this was affecting him. Even though we could tell that he was not in a good space, we didn’t expect him to suffer a stroke and anything of that nature. As I speak, things are not looking good for him. The longer it takes for the investors to get their money back, the harder it is to imagine how he will be able to keep holding on. Ours is to hope for the best,” Dludlu said.

FSRA, which opposed the application to pay ESWIG the amount of E335 240 000, submitted that each of the 1 500 ESWIG investors had to authorise their legal representatives, S.V. Mdladla and Associates, to approach the court on their behalf. The regulatory authority disputed the authority of the investors’ attorney to institute the proceedings, in which they demanded payment of the sum of E335 240 000. FSRA filed an application for leave to dispute the authority of the investors’ legal representatives, S.V. Mdladla and Associates, and mandate to act for the investors. The investors filed their answering affidavit and attached various documents to prove their authority to institute the main proceedings and their lawyer’s authority to act on behalf of each investor.

FSRA General Manager Governance Phumlile Tina Khoza, in the regulatory authority’s replying papers, stated that the latter had considered the documents and ascertained that, they were allegedly inadequate proof of the purported authority.  “In fact, the contrary emerges from those documents. The first defendant (FSRA) could not file this replying affidavit and proceed with the application for leave without first carefully examining the documents filed, because the filing of the documents would ordinarily suffice to prove authority. “The absence of authority to institute the proceedings and act on behalf of some of the investors has compelled the first defendant’s decision to proceed with the application in terms of Rule 7 of the High Court Rules,” said Khoza.  FSRA is represented by Magagula and Hlophe Attorneys.

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: