Is it Garvas or Nicola Nchindo?

ISAIAH MOREWAGAE
Staff Writer | Friday April 9, 2010 00:00

Nicola Segametsi Nchindo nominated her brother, Garvas, to take the plea for Golconda Holdings.

After the nomination, Moroka asked Garvas to confirm whether he (Garvas) accepted his sister's nomination, but before he could respond, advocate Webster stood up and told the court that Garvas' acceptance would not mean they would be relinquishing their right to appeal Moroka's ruling.

Moroka had earlier ruled that Nicola and Garvas were proximate to the affairs of Golconda Holdings. He added that available evidence pointed to the two executors. Moroka told the court that whoever was invited to take the plea for Golconda Holdings would be doing so as a representative not in his or her personal capacity. He added that it would be a failure of justice to invite Nicola in her personal capacity and not representative capacity.

Moroka pointed out that 'natural person serves as the eyes and the ears' of the company. 'The late Nchindo shouldered no personal liabilities by taking a plea for Golconda Holdings. He was serving as its mouthpiece,' Moroka said.The magistrate emphasised that Nicola and Garvas were competent enough to answer for Golconda Holdings.

The defence team feels hard done by Moroka's decision. Webster submitted that the law could not be overridden by a personal wish of an individual. He urges that the will of the late Nchindo cannot be used to find a replacement for Golconda Holdings' representatives.

Advocate Webster also submitted that the issue of Golconda Holdings should be left until the executors have wound up the company and appointed the directors. Craig Webster told the court that an executor could not be made to take a plea for issues that he/she had no association with during the crucial moments.

Webster told the court that the moral blameworthiness was extended to the office bearer who played an active role during the commission of the alleged crime and as such the executor would be prejudiced.