BFA sued for P2.5million

Boitumelo Khutsafalo | Friday November 27, 2015 13:55

The company used to provide service to the Botswana Premier League (BPL), a BFA organ, on a consultancy basis and is now demanding P2.5million in payment arrears.

John Stevens, who acts as a liquidator for Pulah Sports Marketing, wants the High Court Judge, Leatile Dambe to rule that the BPL and BFA pay him P2.5 million.

 According to court records, Pulah Sports Marketing, currently under going liquidation, entered into an agreement with BPL in 2008 for consultancy purposes. The company was to be consulted on issues of securing sponsorship, television rights and marketing rights for the BPL. It was agreed that the BPL would pay the company a fee equivalent to 12.5 percent of the amount raised by Pulah through sponsorship, broadcast agreements, television and marketing rights. It is said that the company then secured a sponsorship for BPL from beMOBILE amounting to P8 million per year for a period of three years totalling P24million. Stevens in his affidavit said by October 2013, beMOBILE had paid BPL an amount of P20million and that his company was entitled be paid P2.5 million from the P20 million.

“On or about September 2011, the second respondent (BPL) paid an amount of P500, 000 to Pulah Sport Marketing. In the premises, the second defendant (BPL), alternatively the first defendant (BFA) is indebted to the plaintiff in the amount of P2 million representing the balance of the fee payable by the second defendant to Pulah,” Stevens said in his affidavit.

He also said by December 2013, beMOBILE was to have paid BPL a further P4million and as a result the BPL were liable to pay his company a further fee of P500, 000.

In defence, the BFA and the BPL argue that Pulah Sports Marketing did not perform all its obligations.

They argue that the company only came up with tender processes for broadcasting rights.

“The only thing the company did under item three was to design the new Premier League logo but the other aspect of the item which is to recommend public programmes was not done. The company led negotiations for commercialisation and broadcasting rights, but nothing was done in respect of perimeter boards and new media,” the defendants argued through their lawyers, Rantao Kewagang Attorneys.

They argue that the P500, 000 already paid to the company is an overpayment for the service rendered by the company. “The company did not perform all its obligations under the agreement and the payment to it of the sponsorship was conditional upon full performance of its obligations under the agreement.”