Pietermaritzburg - Not only is businessman Sunny Gayadin fighting over the Natal Command site in Durban, but also another property adjoining the Liberty Midlands Mall in Pietermaritzburg.
Gayadin, along with businessman Prakash Maistry, who owns the company Epilite 123CC, filed papers in the Pietermaritzburg High Court on Monday against the Msunduzi municipality, Liberty Group Properties, the registrar of deeds and the MECs for traditional affairs and co-operative governance and finance over the R8.5 million sale of the land.
While the latest civil case is yet to be set down, Gayadin is taking on movie-maker Anant Singh in the Constitutional Court in September over his purchase of the R71-million Natal Command site for R15m by public treaty.
In the Pietermaritzburg matter, Gayadin and Maistry want the sale of the property to be declared null and void. If the property has already been transferred to Liberty, they want an order reversing the transaction.
Gayadin said in court papers that when he became aware that the municipality had signed a purchase and sale agreement for the property, he asked his attorney to obtain information on behalf of his company, Umhlanga New Town Properties CC. However, only some of the information had been provided by the municipality.
When the sale was advertised, Maistry’s company Epilite lodged an objection on September 1, 2011, saying he would pay R15m for the land.
However, Gayadin’s information revealed that the council had taken a decision to sell the property to Liberty at a meeting on April 10, 2008, before placing the advert.
In selling the land, he said, the municipality had not followed the proper procedures, including advertising its intention to sell its immovable property.
He added that he was interested in developing the property for commercial purposes with shops and offices, similar to what Liberty contemplated doing.
“A consequence of (the municipality’s) following the wrong sequence of events was that it deprived itself of the opportunity to take into account the first applicant’s (Epilite’s) offer in making a determination as to the fair market value of the property, and any other objections or comments from the public.
“Bearing in mind that there were no comparable sales to draw upon, the fact that the land had to be rezoned and the fair market value had to take account of its future potential for development, opening the property to offers from the public afforded the best opportunity of determining such value based on the willing buyer/willing seller principle,” he said.
Had the municipality followed its processes correctly, it would have had the benefit of offers from interested people that should have been considered and which would have established the fair market value of the property. - The Mercury