[miningmx.com] — CONTROVERSIAL businessman Sandi Majali did not make an appearance at the Gauteng South High Court to respond to his alleged hijacking of mining company Kalahari Resources on Monday.
“Only two respondents made it to court,’ said Deon Lambert of law firm Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs. “Majali was not among them.’ Lambert is a legal representative of Kalahari Resources.
Majali and seven unknown individuals present themselves as the new directors of the R11bn Kalahari Resources, after they removed its rightful directors from the Companies and Intellectual Property Records Office (Cipro) records late August.
Daphne Mashile-Nkosi and her brother were “disqualified’ and resigned as the only directors of Kalahari Resources, a company they started from scratch, without their knowledge. They have sought relief from that action via an urgent high court application, which was supposed to be heard on Monday.
“We could not exactly serve summons on him or his lawyers as we didn’t know where to find them,’ said Lambert. The documents were sent to various addresses related to Majali and his legal representative Webster Legal.
The only known partner of Webster Legal, Philip Webster, confirmed with Miningmx that he was currently out of the country and would be returning later this week.
Lambert said at one of Majali’s addresses someone did accept the documents and promised to pass them on to Majali.
According to Lambert the two respondents that made an appearance in court did not file opposing papers as to why they should not be removed as directors of Kalahari Resources.
“They lodged something they called a counter-application. Then they asked the court for R100m in legal costs, as would a foreign entity preparing to retrieve its costs in the event of its successful litigation,’ said Lambert.
Lambert said the “counter-appeal’ was on the basis that the South African Community Government Union (SACGU), which the respondents claim to represent, has “a right to remove anybody as director and to hold the government accountable as it is the majority shareholder in all the companies’.
The case was postponed to Thursday in order to allow the respondents to decide if they will oppose the relief application.
