Masisi’s sisters triumph against nephew
Sharon Mathala | Wednesday March 13, 2024 08:26
Justice Michael Leburu of the Gaborone High Court delivered judgment on Friday ending the three-year-long court battle. In the matter, the President's nephew, Olebile Pilane, had taken his aunts and business associates to court, alleging they ousted him from their company, G&M Building Services (Proprietary) Limited.
At the heart of the matter is a government water tender, which the First Family's relatives won through their company, along with a joint bid with Tianyuan Construction (Tianyuan), for the construction of the Goodhope Sub-District Water Supply Scheme 2.2 contract for P549,699,654.70 During the trial, Pilane, who was the sole witness to take the stand had argued that he was fraudulently elbowed out of G&M Building Services (Proprietary) Limited soon after winning the tender.
According to his testimony, he claims he was forced to resign from the company by his aunts Boitumelo Phadi Mmutle, Ketshidile Hlanze (Masisi sisters), and their business associate, Chinese businessman Huashi Li at a meeting held at his aunt's home in Phakalane.
He further told the court that he was threatened with violence by the Directorate of Intelligence and Security (DIS) agents. Pilane further claimed that the relationship between him, his aunts and Huashi Li soured when he refused to donate five percent of the contract sum to the ruling Botswana Democratic Party. He said they had projected to make 20% profit from the total sum, which was to be P43,975,972.96 of which his 40% shareholding would have meant that he would make P17,590,388.95, a quantum sum for damages he dragged his family to court for.
His aunts, however, have denied all allegations and his version of events. Following a heated cross-examination, through their lawyer, O’Brien Bvindi, the President’s sisters applied for a case of absolution from the instance. Reading out his judgment, Justice Michael Leburu noted that the court had to determine whether Pilane was able to prove prima facie of liability against all four defendants and whether he was liable for damages claimed. The judge noted that Pilane failed to link the defendants to the action of being elbowed out of the company; the judge further quizzed why Masisi’s sisters have not been named as defendants although his evidence points to them.
“In my judgment, the plaintiff (Pilane) as a former shareholder should have sued for the value of his incorporeal property (shares) unlawfully taken away from him and not for profits, allegedly made by the company. No iota of evidence was adduced to prove that the first defendants made from the said tender,” reads the judgment.
The judge further noted that Pilane could not convince him of the damages claimed because he relied only on ‘trade practice’ to calculate the quantum sum for damages. “It is not enough to allege trade custom and prove or adduce evidence of the existence of such trade custom,” Leburu said. In the end, the judge ruled that Pilane had failed to prove his case.