A battle for control of a multimillion-rand La Lucia resort that could change how timeshare companies operate in South Africa has turned into a legal war, complete with allegations of telephone bugging, theft and death threats.
The saga over La Lucia Sands, a share-block situated in Marine Drive, is played out in affidavits in numerous applications launched in the Durban High Court over the past four years, one of which focuses on the legality of clubs in the points-based timeshare business model.
On one side is La Lucia Sands chairperson Patrick Collins, who is supported by the shareblock's board of directors.
On the other are some of the owners, including timeshare clubs, which fall under the banner of the international Club Leisure Group.
The issue has its roots in what Collins claimed were "questionable methods" used by the group to gain control of targeted shareblocks.
He accused the group of launching "nine offensives against La Lucia Sands - all of which have, as their ultimate goal, control of the block".
But group representative Stuart Lamont accused Collins of being paranoid, delusional and "clinging to his private fiefdom".
In an affidavit in the most recent court challenge, Collins said the main matter - which questions the legal standing of clubs in the group, some of which are shareholders in La Lucia - had been set down for argument next month.
He accused the group of underhand takeover methods, including withholding levies to plunge the shareblock into financial disarray, adding that once in control of the block, the group would "set about increasing the levies to drive shareholders to trade in their shares for points in the clubs".
"The fate of La Montagne and The Breakers comes to mind," he said.
He contended that the group was attempting to force a general meeting to remove the present directors "with the ulterior motive" of scuppering a November court hearing.
He also said that a former director of La Lucia Sands, Panos George Pierides, was a "Trojan horse" and was openly backing the group.
On the Pierides issue, Collins said that another director had organised "the debugging of the premises" where Collins's telephone had been "compromised".
He said the shareblock had laid charges of theft against Pierides.
In his answering affidavit, Lamont said that in the points-based system, holidaymakers owned "points" which entitled them to use accommodation owned, controlled or facilitated by the organisation within which such points were held.
"To facilitate smooth ownership of the large number of timeshare weeks, the weeks are held by a number of clubs. They do not trade, but exist as a vehicle for the ownership of the weeks," he said.
"All the group wants is to ensure that it is represented on the board of directors of any shareblock in which it holds shares to ensure smooth and proper functioning."
Lamont accused Collins of an "inexplicable... pathological hatred" for the points system, and "in his vendetta, has managed to gather together like-minded directors".
He said Collins was capable of wild allegations. "I deny there is an orchestrated campaign to take control of La Lucia Sands.
However, even if that were true for a moment, if that objective can be achieved by lawful means with shareholders supporting the initiative, there is nothing wrong in law with that."
Lamont alleged that he and Pierides had been "subject to death threats by unsavoury characters who claim to have been retained by Collins".
In an attached affidavit, Ari Halpern, a "security consultant" based in Johannesburg, said he had come to Durban at the instance of "Mr Collens and Mr Menthey" (sic) to "gather evidence to discredit and or destroy" Lamont and Pierides.
He had eventually been told that his services were no longer required.
"I believe this was because I would not comply with their criminal intentions," Halpern stated.
In a further affidavit, Collins described the "murder conspiracy" as "bizarre". He said he had been questioned, but the police were "satisfied that the entire episode was a farce".
An interim interdict is in place preventing the holding of any meeting to remove the present directors until after the outcome of the November hearing.