Old Mutual, Moyo battle rages
Old Mutual argued on Wednesday that a high court ruling that temporarily reinstated axed CEO Peter Moyo was inappropriate and must be overturned.
Vincent Maleka SC, for Old Mutual, also questioned any suggestion Moyo was a whistleblower who made protected disclosures before his removal.
Moyo, the insurer and its directors are locked in four acrimonious court battles over the termination of his employment in June.
In papers filed in the high court in Johannesburg, Moyo has levelled multiple accusations of contempt of court against Old Mutual, one of which relates to board chair Trevor Manuel’s describing judge Brian Mashile, against whose ruling Old Mutual was appealing on Wednesday, as “an individual in a robe”.
Old Mutual has applied for Mashile to recuse himself from the contempt of court case, and that application is set to be heard in the coming days.
Three judges — Piet Meyer, Elias Matojane and Raylene Keightley — are now considering whether Mashile was correct to order that Moyo be reinstated pending his legal challenge of his removal.
Moyo is also suing Old Mutual for R250m in damages in a separate case. Old Mutual and its directors insist there was nothing unlawful about terminating Moyo’s employment.
On Wednesday, Maleka contended that while Old Mutual had also alleged that Moyo may have been guilty of misconduct and conflict of interest, its primary reason for axing him was the breakdown in trust.
Moyo was fired after NMT Capital, a private equity company he cofounded, paid ordinary dividends while it owed Old Mutual preferential capital and had not paid preferential dividends to the insurer on time.
Moyo’s lawyer argues that Old Mutual damaged his reputation by removing him after accusing him of misconduct and conflict of interest, without giving him the chance to properly defend himself.
The insurer is urging the court to look at the reasons Old Mutual advanced for its breakdown in trust in Moyo, not simply the breakdown itself.
Mashile himself acknowledged that the relationship between Moyo and Old Mutual was “unwholesome”, and Old Mutual’s board says it is trying to establish whether, in the light of that, it can be compelled to work with someone it does not trust.
Gilbert Marcus, for Old Mutual, told the court that the relationship between Moyo and the board was clearly “dysfunctional”.
He said Mashile’s description of the relationship between Old Mutual and Moyo as “unwholesome” was “the understatement of the year”.
He argued that Mashile failed to properly consider this breakdown in relationship when he ordered that Moyo be temporarily reinstated, pending the outcome of his substantive legal challenge to his removal.
Moyo is pursuing a separate application to have Old Mutual’s non-executive directors declared delinquent.
A director declared delinquent may not serve as a director on any board for a period of seven years.
Marcus argued that the insurer’s application clearly showed that Moyo himself acknowledged that he could not work with the board.
Marcus also criticised Moyo’s argument that Old Mutual had violated his rights after alleging that he was guilty of misconduct and conflict of interest and then terminating his contract without allowing him to defend himself.
Marcus said this was an “absurd consequences” argument, as Moyo could have challenged his dismissal as an unfair labour practice in the labour court, or sued Old Mutual for defamation, but did not do so.
“Our learned friends have made their bed and they must lie in it,” Marcus said.