Woman in Tongaat case is said to have no legal standing

The court case to have the purchase of Tongaat Hulett overturned has been brought by someone claiming under oath to be the owner of a business owed money by the sugar firm, but records show this is not the case.

This could mean the court action against the purchase of Tongaat by the Vision consortium has no legal standing and could be thrown out.

On January 11, when creditors voted on who could buy Tongaat, Vision, headed by SA business person Robert Gumede and Zimbabwean Rutenhuro Moyo, was the only one offering to buy the business. Vision now owns the sugar producer, subject to legal processes and payment, which could take months.

However, a supplier is trying to have the Vision business rescue plan, and thus the ownership of Tongaat, thrown out.

Mohini Naidoo, who brought the case on behalf of supplier Powertrans Sales and Services, claims to be the only owner of the firm. But according to a search of the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC), she stepped down in 2020.

It was first pointed out in Vision’s legal papers, with the argument that she has no legal standing to bring the case, which Business Day’s search confirmed. The actual owner of Powertrans, Strinivasen, or Raven, Naidoo, would not comment when approached by Business Day. He is apparently the former husband of Mohini Naidoo, according to Vision’s court papers.

Vision says in legal documents that Powertrans’ court case is actually being brought by Mozambican consumer goods firm RGS, which wanted to buy Tongaat. Vision says RGS is using Mohini Naidoo “as a front for their legal case”.

RGS pulled out of its bid for Tongaat a day before creditors voted on the deal. It has since emerged in court documents RGS didn’t have the R2bn required upfront in its Mozambican Absa bank account despite providing a fraudulent letter claiming such.

Tongaat’s business rescue practitioners are also part of the case. In their legal papers they ask Mohini Naidoo to “say under oath whether she has been encouraged, persuaded or induced by third parties to do so and on what basis”.

The practitioners say in court papers that despite no Powertrans representative having attended the January 11 meeting to vote on the buyer of Tongaat, the Powertrans court documents quote extensively from the meeting.

Vision also notes in court papers that Powertrans is spending extensively on legal fees over an unpaid claim of R2m, but stands to lose more than that if it loses the court action.

Vision claims RGS is funding the action and should be served with costs if Powertrans loses.

Moyo asks in court papers for the case to be thrown out: “I therefore ask the court to conclude that this application is brought for an ulterior purpose and is an abuse of process and to dismiss it on that basis alone.”

Powertrans claims its case against Vision’s business plan must be dealt with urgently, but the practitioners say Vision’s plan was first published on November 29 and the case against the plan was only brought after the sale in late January. This suggests the case is not urgent.

Only after Powertrans brought the case did RGS apply to join as an extra intervening party.

The practitioners warn that if the case succeeds and the purchase of Tongaat is overturned, liquidation could result, which would have a devastating effect on the economy of KwaZuluNatal.

Judgment is expected on

Tuesday.