Miss Botswana dispute reaches High Court

BASHI LETSIDIDI
Correspondent | Wednesday November 30, 2011 00:00

 

The directors of 63 Entertainment, Bissau Gaobakwe and Thapelo Pabalinga have taken the legal route after the Botswana Council of Women (BCW) terminated their company's management contract to organise the contest.

The three-year contract was signed last March. But last month, BCW, through its lawyers, notified 63 Entertainment that it was terminating the contract because of a breach. Part of the agreement was that the company would pay BCW P121,000 two weeks before the pageant and avail the balance afterwards. The company was to secure prizes and make them available to BCW a month before the pageant.

However, the termination letter from BCW's lawyers says that 63 Entertainment failed to pay the money at the agreed time and did so only after the pageant and following constant reminders and protests.

The letter says the company failed to deliver the prizes before the pageant or afterwards. 'To date, the prizes are still outstanding. Despite the constant reminders and enquiries by client, you have continued to breach the agreement to the detriment of our client,' says the letter, adding that the company's failure to deliver reflects badly on BCW.

In terminating the contract, the letter makes it clear that 63 Entertainment is still expected to deliver contest prizes, failing which legal proceedings will be instituted against it.

However, it is the company that has instituted legal proceedings against the BCW. It has gone to the High Court to reverse the termination of the contract. In an affidavit, Gaobakwe tells the story of how the relationship between the two parties came about.

In 2009, 63 Entertainment entered into a five-year contract with BCW 'to rebuild the Miss Botswana brand' and stage the pageant. The revamping of the brand was to be conducted in such a manner that it would attract sponsors and restore public confidence in the pageant.

'The Miss Botswana Pageant at the time had very little credibility, having not been staged frequently and consistently as would be expected. As a result it did not have a following and respect of an audience or sponsors,' Gaobakwe says in his affidavit.

He states that his company restored the pageant to its former glory and last year, Emma Wareus, went on to become Miss World Africa and first princess at Miss World. He says that the cost of staging Miss Botswana is prohibitive and in 2009 and 2010 they made huge losses, hence 63 Entertainment had to fork out its own money to put the extravaganza together. In 2009, the cost of staging the show was P1,103 666.31 against an income of P449,800.

The first prize was a Mercedes Benz C200 valued at P320,000, the second prize was P50,000 and the third P20,000, both in cash.

In 2010, the first prize was a Botswana Housing Corporation flat worth P450,000, while the other two prizes remained unchanged. The affidavit says that although the queen's prizes are available at the time of the pageant, they are given to winners after their reign. 'This is to make sure they uphold the standards and responsibilities of being Miss Botswana throughout the year,' Gaobakwe explains.

The financial challenges notwithstanding, the company managed to organise the 2009 and 2010 events and pay both contestants and BCW.  This year the pageant's fortunes turned around because for the first time, the company broke even.

An amount of P250,000 was invested with Investec on behalf of the winner while once more, the second and third prizes remained unchanged. The other change that 2011 brought was a new contract which, unlike the old one, had a termination clause and granted 63 Entertainment exclusive rights to organise, promote and stage the pageant. For this exclusivity, 63 Entertainment was required to pay P121,000 to BCW in two instalments and the sum was to escalate by 10 percent on a yearly basis.

However, seven months later, the relationship between the two parties soured and on November 1, 63 Entertainment received 'without prior warning to rectify any defaults', the termination letter from BCW's lawyers.

Such warning, Gaobakwe is keen to stress, is a contractual requirement: 'The respondent was obliged to give the applicant notice to remedy its breach within 14 days from the date of notice'. He then demonstrates how the termination would be prejudicial to 63 Entertainment. The company, he says, has had to provide sureties to different creditors to raise the necessary funding to stage the show.

'This has become imperative as the sponsors only release money after the event and not all of them do. The applicant has, as a result of the agreement, entered into long-term sureties with some creditors based on the length of the contract it has with the respondent.

The purported termination has very huge financial and reputational repercussions for the applicant and leaves the applicants directors facing potential court applications on their sureties and would suffer irreparable harm if an interim interdict is not granted,' Gaobakwe says.

His plea to court is that the agreement should be preserved for the next two years.  The task of deciding whether there is legal basis for this has fallen to Justice Abednico Tafa at the Lobatse High Court.