Durban businessman Sbu Mpisane. Picture: Doctor Ngcobo
Durban businessman Sbu Mpisane. Picture: Doctor Ngcobo

Mpisane sued over car debts

By Kamini Padayachee Time of article published Nov 30, 2015

Share this article:

Durban - The sale of two Lamborghinis – valued at R1.9 million each – helped finance vehicles for companies owned by controversial Durban businessman S’bu Mpisane.

But in spite of this, the total bill was never settled and now Zikhulise Auto Restorers CC and Inyanga Trading 559 Pty Ltd are being sued in the Durban High Court by Blitzvinnig Trading for failing to make payment on two vehicles, worth about R2 million in total.

Mpisane, in an sms to The Mercury on Friday, denied the claims and said the matters would be fully ventilated in court.

“We are confident that the truth will prevail,” Mpisane said.

But in one of the matters, Mpisane is already on the back foot, as summary judgment was granted against Zikhulise last Thursday.

Zikhulise had filed a notice to defend the matter but no defence was filed within the stipulated time. Zikhulise was ordered to return a Tata tipper vehicle and pay the costs of the legal action.

According to Blitzvinnig, the companies concluded a “partly oral, partly written sale agreement” in March 2013, in which Zikhulise was represented by Mpisane. A document, filed in court by Blitzvinnig, shows that there were a number of transactions concluded between the companies between March and April 2013 in which the vehicle was one of four bought by Mpisane’s company. Zikhulise also traded in two Lamborghinis, valued at R1.9m each, and took a cash loan of R50 000, which left a shortfall for the purchase of the vehicles of close to R900 000.

Blitzvinnig said the Tata tipper was delivered to Zikhulise on the understanding that it (Blitzvinnig) would retain ownership until the purchase price was paid in full. The company said Zikhulise had failed to pay the full purchase price.

In the second similar matter, Blitzvinnig said it sold several vehicles to Inyanga Trading between May 2013 and October 2014.

One of these was a Tata truck tractor, which was sold in December 2013. The company said the vehicle was delivered to Inyanga, but the full purchase price was not paid.

The company has applied for summary judgment where Inyanga would be ordered to return the vehicle and to pay the costs of the application.

In an affidavit filed with the court to defend the matter, Mpisane said Inyanga had bought the vehicle for the purpose of fulfilling a transport-related contract, but it had not been suitable. He said the companies had only an “oral agreement”, and in terms of it, if the vehicle was not suitable, it would be returned and payment would be waived.

He said his company had tried to return the vehicle to Blitzvinnig in August this year, but the company had refused to accept it. He said the application should he refused because Blitzvinnig wanted to change the terms of the agreement to “unjustifiably enrich itself” at the expense of Inyanga.

In court, an order was granted to refuse summary judgment and Inyanga was granted leave to defend the action.

The Mercury

Use IOL’s Facebook and Twitter pages to comment on our stories. See links below.

Share this article: