SHIVAMBU IN DEBT DRAMA Mrs Jones’ sexy new look breaks internet
Company can’t keep up with the instalments
VBS R16m beneficiary’s company owes six months instalments for Toyota Corolla
Merely a week after being exposed for have creamed R16m from the embattled VBS Mutual Bank, the company of EFF deputy president Floyd Shivambu’s younger brother, Brian Answer Shivambu, is on the brink of losing a Toyota Corolla due to bad payment.
The 30-year-old businessman and his company Mabyeni Trading and Projects were this week hauled to the South Gauteng High Court by Nedbank’s Motor Finance Corporation division for allegedly failing to keep up with the R4 580.50 monthly instalments on a 2016 Toyota Corolla Quest.
Shivambu was listed in Adv Terry Motau’s report, “The
Great Bank Heist” as one of the 53 people and companies that received close to R2bn in -gratuitous payments from VBS Mutual Bank.
However, it has since been established through Nedbank’s application that Shivambu’s company appears to be struggling, despite reports that he received millions from VBS.
According to papers filed in court, the company bought the car in December 2016 for R381 000.
The papers show that Mabyeni was expected to make 70 monthly instalments before paying off the car in January 2023 with a final payment of R56 213.97.
However, the papers indicate that two years into the agreement, the company allegedly struggled to keep up with the instalments and defaulted on repayments for more than six months. Shivambu confirmed to Sunday World that the car’s instalments were not paid for many months, but he blamed that on his employees, claiming that he was not aware.
“I only became aware of the arrears last week after Nedbank sent me an e-mail informing me of their intended action. I paid R34 000 this week to clear the arrears.”
When asked to produce proof of payment, Shivambu said he was not willing to do so as he had no obligation to do so.
Shivambu equated Nedbank’s court application to sabotage, stating that if the bank was genuine in its actions, it should have taken action against him three months ago before the VBS debacle.
“The timing of the application is worrying because its happening a week after the VBS report.
“How come they didn’t file those papers months ago as per their standard practice to take action against a client who defaults for three months? They just want to sabotage me. But they won’t succeed,” he said.
He said the car was being used by his employees to run his office, and he had not seen it since last year.
“The car has probably lost its colour because I last saw it last year. I only drove it the day I took it from the dealership. At the moment I don’t have a car. I use Uber and taxis for my movements,” said Shivambu.
The bank, in its papers, claimed that Shivambu’s company ignored two letters of demand sent in August and reminding them of the arrears on the account.
According to one letter dated August 20 2018 annexed to the application, the company was in arrears of R14 230, and at the time of the application, the arrears had escalated to R30 506.55.
“Unless payment of the arrears amount of R30 506.55 is made within 10 business days from date of delivery hereof, the agreement will be cancelled and the full amount owing will be immediately due and payable.
“In addition to any cancellation of the agreement, we shall be entitled to inter alia claim possession of the goods,” reads one of the letters.
The papers show that Brian signed as surety for the car purchase, agreeing to be a coprincipal debtor with the bank, becoming liable for the monthly payments on demand.
The documents indicate that after the company allegedly ignored letters of notices from the bank alerting them about the arrears, the bank cancelled the agreement and went to court to institute action.
The aim of the action, according to the papers, is to confirm the cancellations of the agreement and to compel Shivambu’s company to return the car while also forfeiting all the monies he had already paid.
Nedbank spokesperson Kedibone Molopyane said: “Nedbank is not at liberty to disclose any client’s information due to banker/client confidentiality.”