ANC ordered to pay R102m

BTTB

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
8,411
Reaction score
1,046
Location
iKapa
ANC ordered to pay R102m

I think this is a fairly significant ruling for its time and place in our political history and the forthcoming elections.

Things are getting tight for the ANC.
The ANC can't go around shafting people for money, its not right.
Who in their right mind would ever wasn't to do business with the ANC.
A contract for R87m gets dismissed when its obviously owed.
The fact that the parties did not settle out of court shows how strong was the case the supplier had.

Did nobody at the ANC see the 30000 banners being installed or come forward and say No we did not place this order?

I knew the ANC was dodgy but not paying a supplier is cruel.
Things cost money, suppliers need to be paid.

Congratulations to Ezulweni’s lawyers, from the Bezuidenhout Valley-based law firm Sarlie & Ismail Inc
 
ANC ordered to pay R102m

I think this is a fairly significant ruling for its time and place in our political history and the forthcoming elections.

Things are getting tight for the ANC.
The ANC can't go around shafting people for money, its not right.
Who in their right mind would ever wasn't to do business with the ANC.
A contract for R87m gets dismissed when its obviously owed.
The fact that the parties did not settle out of court shows how strong was the case the supplier had.

Did nobody at the ANC see the 30000 banners being installed or come forward and say No we did not place this order?

I knew the ANC was dodgy but not paying a supplier is cruel.
Things cost money, suppliers need to be paid.

Congratulations to Ezulweni’s lawyers, from the Bezuidenhout Valley-based law firm Sarlie & Ismail Inc
I don't think it was initially a matter of not wanting to pay them, haven't you heard of companies doing things for free while expecting nothing in return? I am sure something derailed whatever dodgy arrangements they used to settle such things, in the good old days that tenderpreneur would be thrown another tender to shut them up.
 
I don't think it was initially a matter of not wanting to pay them, haven't you heard of companies doing things for free while expecting nothing in return? I am sure something derailed whatever dodgy arrangements they used to settle such things, in the good old days that tenderpreneur would be thrown another tender to shut them up.
Sure I could partake in that conspiracy theory given the ANC's track record on corruption.

However it looks more like this one was straight down the middle, non payment and subsequent litigation.
Doubt the plaintiff would have gone to this much trouble if they did not have a winnable case, although R87m isn't something you can just write off to petty cash.

Noting all the cynical comments in this thread, one can only say this about the ANC.
You reap what you sow and harvest time (oes tyd) for the ANC (Pty) Ltd et al is here.

That Cele guy gives me the creeps with his 1920s gangster styled hat, looking like he is in deep thought/trance, pondering how to serve his nation better, not.
 
I don't know the details but Thumbs up emoji is now a sealed agreement? Need to be careful now.

Acting Judge U Bhoola of the South Gauteng High Court has ruled that evidence Ezulweni Investments provided proved that it entered into a bona fide oral agreement with the governing party.

Ezulweni’s papers detailed meetings and WhatsApp communication between Ramdas, Mabaso and Nkholise discussing the progress of the banners projection. “Mabaso and Nkholise admit receiving the messages from Ramdas but deny that they responded to them,” Judge Bhoola said in the judgment.

“However, on… 27 April 2019 at 12pm Nkholise responded with a ‘thumbs up’ emoji, clearly indicating their approval for the 20 000 banners (that Ramdas said could already be made available).”
 
I don't know the details but Thumbs up emoji is now a sealed agreement? Need to be careful now.

Its a fine line, but case law on oral agreements is quite comprehensive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_contract
In general, oral contracts are just as valid as written ones, but some jurisdictions either require a contract to be in writing in certain circumstances (for example where real property is being conveyed), or that a contract be evidenced in writing (although the contract itself may be oral).

An emoji is just as much proof as an oral agreement.
 
Its a fine line, but case law on oral agreements is quite comprehensive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_contract


An emoji is just as much proof as an oral agreement.
Oral agreements are binding, except fixed property.

Maybe "oral" should be just that, the spoken word, not an emoji sign.
So much is lost in translation these days with texting, you see it on Social Media and Forums all the time.
 
they won't pay ....

viva anc ........ viva ......

Pretty much this.

People think you go to court, win and then all is fine. At the end of the day you still need to get someone to physically go to the bank and do the transfer, and no matter what a court decides it doesn't physically force anyone to take that action. Unfortunately this isn't an episode of "Law & Order" or "Boston Legal". The supplier will never be paid and their business will be sunk.
 
Quite a common occurrence this in the business world where big businesses bully small suppliers with non payment. Often the small business has to write off the loss because they cannot afford the legal fees to fight it out in court and the big business knows this.

I think if you asked anyone with a small business they would tell you the same story of how this underhanded tactic was used against them.

I know of one guy this happened to and after they refused to pay he just tapped out and closed up shop, couldn't go on any more and it broke him. It took many years for him to get on his feet again.
 
Last edited:
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X