The ANC has failed to persuade the court yet again that it is not accountable for a R102 million debt owing to a KwaZulu-Natal branding company for its 2019 general election campaign materials.
The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) released a decision on Friday in an appeal application filed by the ANC to demonstrate that it did not have a contractual relationship with Ezulweni Investments.
The Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg issued the ANC a writ on May 23 ordering the “execution of movable goods of the debtor, the ANC, at Luthuli House to cause the realisation, by public auction, of R102 465 000, together with interest at 10.25% per annum from 9 May 2019 to 31 August 2020.”
Before the dispute was heard by the SCA, Ezulweni won two cases against the ANC: the primary application in 2020 for R102 465 000 and an appeal in 2022.
The company claimed that the ANC owed them money for campaign materials provided to the party ahead of the 2019 election.
The accord was reached after talks between the company’s owner, Renash Ramdas, and two ANC employees.
During the court proceedings, Ramdas, who described himself as a lifetime ANC supporter, revealed text messages demonstrating that Ezulweni and the ANC had a commercial relationship.
He even mentioned a February 2019 meeting with former ANC treasurer-general Paul Mashatile and ANC personnel at a hotel in Ekurhuleni.
The ANC’s secretary-general, Fikile Mbalula, stated in May that the case was an example of fraud. When the contract was signed, he was the ANC’s head of elections.
The SCA concluded on Friday that the ANC’s appeal should be dismissed with the costs of two counsels.
The party had failed to persuade the court that factual disagreements were interfering with the essence of its contract with Ezulweni.
Another concern highlighted by the party was that one of the ANC officials named as a negotiator with Ezulweni was not authorized to enter into agreements on the party’s behalf.
The court said the ANC didn’t prove this as fact.
The ANC also attempted to bring new evidence from an ENS Forensics study to indicate Ezulweni’s fraudulent intent and price overinflation.
The report, however, was neither signed or dated by ENS, which the SCA found peculiar and wondered why the party never argued this evidence in the high court. The evidence, according to the court, also did not fulfill acceptable requirements.
“The further evidence sought to be introduced was the forensic report and findings prepared by ENS Forensics (Pty) Ltd, which investigated the procurement process involving the two parties. The report itself was not put up in the papers. Only the executive summary was put up.
“The summary was neither signed nor dated, and the author was not identified in the founding affidavit. Neither the author nor the persons to whom statements in the report were attributed put up affidavits confirming those statements.
“These factors present insuperable difficulties in the way of the application to admit the report as evidence on appeal on each of the three requirements. All of this means that the case mounted by the ANC for the admission of this evidence on appeal fell woefully short of the accepted test. For these reasons, the order was made dismissing the application with costs,” the SCA judgment reads.
