Accusations of ‘fake’ papers in Masisi’s relatives tender feud
Mpho Mokwape | Monday May 29, 2023 06:00
As events continue to unfold, Masisi’s sister, Boitumelo Phadi-Mmutle, has insinuated that the shareholding certificates produced by his arch rival nephew Olebile Pilane are fake.
Phadi-Mmutle, who is currently engaged in a legal battle with his nephew, says the certificates appear not genuine and cannot be used as proof for shareholding.
In her pleadings to his nephew’s accusations among them being threatened and pushed out of the company G&M Services, Phadi-Mmutle said on the basis of the share certificates produced, it could not be said that Pilane was a shareholder. “The said share certificates do not appear to be genuine documents as they were allegedly given out on May 18, 2021 yet are stamped August 28, 2019,” she said.
Phadi-Mmutle also pointed out that the copy his nephew’s won share certificate was written as representing that he holds 20 shares yet it listed the number of shares as 40. She explained that Pilane could not on the basis of the share certificates claim to be a shareholder of the company and that he had failed to show he was ever on the share register and was unlawfully removed.
The aunt in her continuous denial of the nephew and his shareholding said Pilane has not shown proof of acquisition of the shareholding. “The fact that his name may have appeared as a shareholder at the time of re-registration does not take away from the fact that he never acquired shareholding in the company, also being unable to state who he purchased the shares from, the price of the shares and how much he paid for such shares,” Phadi-Mmutle said. Still on the shareholding, Phadi-Mmutle denied that Pilane was ever a shareholder in the company as the person he claimed to have bought shares from was never a shareholder himself. Pilane, in his papers, alleged that he bought shares from Chinese businessman Huashi Li but his aunt refuted the allegations questioning how Pilane got shares from a non shareholder. Li is reportedly the managing director of Precon Construction Company and that he was doing some collaboration with G&M Services. “Huashi Li did not have the capacity to enter into such an arrangement on behalf of the company as he was not then and is not now a director nor shareholder of the company being G&M Services,” Phadi-Mmutle further argued. Further the aunt pointed out that his nephew did not state what the agreed price of the shares was and how much he was going to pay for such shares.
She explained that the allegation was incredible in the sense that Pilane did not acquire such shares from Li and that it was strange that the payment would be made to or arranged by Li. “Huashi Li was never a shareholder as such he could never have offered shares to Pilane as he alleges. The signing of the documents was simply in relation to the joint venture between Tianyuan Construction Group Limited as well as Precon Construction and G&M Buildings Company,” she submitted. She emphasised that such signing could have not been confirmation of any statement that Li was a shareholder nor validation of any alleged statement made by him.
Phadi-Mmutle also noted that Li never presented any document to Pilane and that he resigned voluntarily and ceded his shares as he had failed to pay for such shares. She further explained that there were no shares claimed unlawfully from her nephew as alleged and that he has not suffered any special damages as he never acquired the shares properly or at all and never paid for them. “He has nothing to lose. He has not even shown how he suffered special damages or any other damages as alleged.
Moreover, he is not entitled to any part of the amount that may be realised from the project,” she submitted. On the distribution of his (Pilane) shares unlawfully, his aunt said the people who got the shares got them from different parties and not from him and that he has no cause of action against them. The shares are alleged to have been gotten by second and third defendant in the matter being Kelebogile Monnaatshipi and Tswela Khumo Ventures Limited. Phadi-Mmutle accused his nephew of simply throwing defendants around especially the second and third defendants who she says he has failed his claim citing it was unnecessary joinder without cause of action being shown against the said parties. In conclusion she asked the court throw out the actions against the two above mentioned parties just like against the first respondent being G&M Services. “His claim is incompetent and should be dismissed by the court and he cannot further claim interest on claim for damages,” were her last words.