Court hands Sereetsi technical blow

Goitsemodimo Kaelo | Sunday March 3, 2024 06:00

Sereetsi and Letshwiti have been involved in a legal battle over a performance contract that went sour in 2021 and 2022.

In a ruling delivered on February 23, Justice Chris Gabanagae of the High Court ruled in favour of Letshwiti, dismissing Sereetsi’s case on a technical point. According to the court papers, Sereetsi, through his musical band, Sereetsi and The Natives and Letshwiti had entered into a contract for musical performances at various shows in Gaborone (November 13, 2021, March 5 2022), Francistown (11 December), Maun (April 17) and Serowe/Palapye (September 24). In terms of the agreement, the defendant (Letshwiti) was under obligation to effect the payment to the plaintiff in full, seven days before any scheduled event. Sereetsi told the court that because the parties had agreed on the dates, the band reserved the dates for the event and thus did not take any bookings on those dates in anticipation that they were booked for the African Attire On Fleek event.

The plaintiff duly rendered the performance on November 13, 2021 (at Tashy’s Royal Gardens) as agreed and expected that the defendant would abide by the contract between the parties. However, the defendant breached the agreement in that he staged a music event in Francistown on December 11, 2021, and failed to pay the plaintiff seven days before the event, resulting in the plaintiff being unable to perform at the event. Sereetsi further argued in the court papers that he tried in vain to compel the event organisers to abide by the terms of the contract.

The breach of a contract by the event organisers, according to Sereetsi, led to a financial loss on his part. However, in his defence, Letshwiti raised an exception to the plaintiff’s declaration on the basis that he lacks locus standi and lack of the necessary averments to sustain the action. On locus standi, Letshwiti had argued that the plaintiff had pleaded a contract to which he is not a party to but an agent to a disclosed principal this is so because he was acting as a representative of the band, Sereetsi and The Natives, therefore, cannot sue in his own name.

Regarding the lack of the necessary averments to sustain the action, he had argued that the plaintiff has not pleaded or averred Francistown, Gaborone, Maun and Serowe/Plalapye, which pleadings go to the root of the plaintiff’s action, therefore, should be dismissed with costs. When making a ruling, Justice Gabanagae agreed with Letshwiti that Sereetsi had no legal capacity to institute action as he has failed to demonstrate where he got the authority from since he entered into the agreement as an agent. “In the agreement, Tomeletso Sereetsi is described as the agent representing the artist described as Sereetsi and The Natives. On the last page of the agreement, the documents record Tomeletso Sereetsi as the agent and indicate that he is acting on behalf of Sereetsi and The Natives.

As correctly submitted by the defendant, throughout the agreement there is constant reference to the producer and the artist as the parties, the artist being Sereetsi and The Natives. It is clear that the contracting parties, an entity referred to as Sereetsi and The Natives, acting through its agent, Tomeletso Sereetsi, entered into a contract with the producer, David Letshwiti,” said Justice Gabanagae.

“I agree with the defendant that the plaintiff has not disclosed the nature of Sereetsi and The Natives, to this end, it is still unknown whether Sereetsi and The Natives is a trading name for the plaintiff alone, a trading name for a partnership or the plaintiff is a constituent member of Sereetsi and The Natives which we know is the artist in the agreement. I conclude that the plaintiff has no locus standi and makes no declaration on whether or not there has been any cession of action by Sereetsi and The Natives. The plaintiff’s action is dismissed with costs,” concluded the judge.