Business

ENSafrica set to be sued for accepting a case knowing it represents both parties

By Aishah Cassiem 28m in the past

Share this text:



A BUSINESSWOMAN is set to take authorized motion in opposition to one in every of Africa’s greatest legislation corporations, for allegedly agreeing to characterize her company, taking her money and confidential info, and thereafter backing out whereas knowing it was on the panel of the Small Enterprise Finance Agency (Sefa) which was a respondent within the case.

Mendiswe Mzamane’s small black-owned business, Razoscan, was one in every of many accepted loans for companies from traditionally deprived communities, however alleged corruption from Sefa left her with a main company loss when the entity allegedly gave her R3 million to a Greek nationwide in 2015.

Mzamane mentioned she was looking out for reliable corporations to help her in retrieving her money from Sefa when she lastly approached Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs (ENSafrica) in December 2018 to characterize her.

ENSafrica allegedly additionally failed to inform her that it was a part of a group of 70 legislation corporations on Sefa’s panel, till earlier this year after two different corporations declined to characterize her due to being on the identical panel.

She mentioned the unhappy half was that whereas she was in monetary difficulties, she had to undergo a fund-raising train to pay the agency R50 000.

In a January e-mail despatched to Mzamani by ENSafrica’s George van Niekerk, the latter argued that the matter had a lengthy and tortuous historical past.

“Clearly there has been a complete breakdown in the relationship. It does not appear to me that it can be mended, and in these circumstances, I think your interests will be better served by appointing other attorneys. Having come to this view, we will refund your deposit of R50 000,” he mentioned.

Even although ENSafrica has since reimbursed Mzamane, she mentioned she was involved that the agency might have performed her in favour of Sefa and was sitting along with her confidential info which might smash her case within the Pretoria excessive courtroom.

ENSafrica chief working officer Lee Mendelsohn mentioned: “You will no doubt appreciate that much of the detail which you are seeking from us is confidential and, as such, we are not permitted to share it with anybody. You are of course at liberty to request it directly from the persons/entities concerned, as you appear to have done.

“We can, however, confirm that we were on record for Mzamane in the matter to which you refer for some time, after which we ceased to act for her, for reasons entirely unrelated to those referred to by you.

“We can confirm that we are not and were not at any time relevant to Mzamane’s matter, on the legal panel of Sefa. We would caution you not to be drawn into publishing what are clearly false allegations,” he mentioned.

However, Mzamane mentioned the agency was mendacity, as they have been in truth representing her similtaneously being on Sefa’s panel, as she made contact with ENSafrica solely in December 2018, and at last made cost for providers final year.

“They should have clearly known that they were on Sefa’s panel at that time before taking on my matter, as several other firms who I approached for help recently immediately declined me due to being on the panel. So, why did they choose to not warn me, like the others?” she requested.

ENSafrica was listed because the seventieth service supplier, one of many chosen authorized entities on the panel of exterior authorized attorneys for Sefa, for a interval of three years, as printed in 2018.

Mzamane mentioned she was laying legal expenses in opposition to Sefa and ENSafrica over the matter. She had written to the Legal Practice Council (LPC) and Pretoria excessive courtroom Judge President Dunstan Mlambo.

LPC communication supervisor Sthembiso Mnisi mentioned Mzamane was inside her rights to report the authorized practitioners for misconduct.

Sefa didn’t reply to the questions pertaining to the matter after a number of calls and emails, and whereas ENSafrica had responded, on the time of publication they didn’t reply to questions across the allegations of a potential irregular bidding course of.


Back to top button