Tycoon Mzi Khumalo has lost his long drawn out legal battle to have the decision by the SA Reserve Bank to forfeit his assets and shares worth R1-billion expunged.
Judge Hans Fabricius ruled against Khumalo yesterday, in an application he brought in November 2011.
At the time the central bank had hit Khumalo, a former Umkhonto weSizwe operative, with the order of forfeiture, on the grounds that he had flouted exchange control laws.
The bank found that Khumalo violated exchange control laws when he negotiated a loan of R760-million with Deutsche Bank London for Mawenzi Resources and Finance Company, his company.
The flouting of laws related to how Khumalo pledged to Deutsche Bank shares he had bought from Harmony Gold in a BEE scheme.
In one of the biggest forfeiture orders ever issued by the Reserve Bank, Khumalo's assets and shares in several companies were seized and directed to the National Revenue Fund.
These included shares and assets at Mawenzi, football club Lamontville Golden Arrows, Metalion Hotels and Leisure Holdings, Joob Joob Investments, Mzi Khumalo Family Trust, Simane Security Investments and interests in a R50-million private jet, the Raytheon 390 Premier 1 aircraft.
Khumalo argued in court papers that the Reserve Bank attached a substantial number of assets not owned by him or Mawenzi.
"The effect of the attachment and forfeiture was that none of my assets were attached, some assets of Mawenzi were attached and assets of third parties who were not related to the application, without any basis in law and fact," he said.
"The fact that the Reserve Bank has sought to unilaterally attach these assets on such a broad and all-encompassing basis, in circumstances where [I] neither own nor hold an interest in such assets is clearly indicative of the attitude and manner in which the [bank] has sought to deal with [me]."
He also argued that some of the companies were either liquidated, dormant or did not exist.
Fabricius ruled against Khumalo on the basis that he had failed to prove how the forfeiture personally affected him if the seized assets and shares did not belong to him. "At the time of lodging this application, on [Khumalo's] own version, he had no interest in any of these companies or assets.
"Accordingly, none of his rights could be adversely affected by the forfeiture and he had therefore no direct and substantial interest in the relief claimed," Fabricius said.
BEE tycoon forfeits R1bn in shares, assets
Tycoon Mzi Khumalo has lost his long drawn out legal battle to have the decision by the SA Reserve Bank to forfeit his assets and shares worth R1-billion expunged.
Judge Hans Fabricius ruled against Khumalo yesterday, in an application he brought in November 2011.
At the time the central bank had hit Khumalo, a former Umkhonto weSizwe operative, with the order of forfeiture, on the grounds that he had flouted exchange control laws.
The bank found that Khumalo violated exchange control laws when he negotiated a loan of R760-million with Deutsche Bank London for Mawenzi Resources and Finance Company, his company.
The flouting of laws related to how Khumalo pledged to Deutsche Bank shares he had bought from Harmony Gold in a BEE scheme.
In one of the biggest forfeiture orders ever issued by the Reserve Bank, Khumalo's assets and shares in several companies were seized and directed to the National Revenue Fund.
These included shares and assets at Mawenzi, football club Lamontville Golden Arrows, Metalion Hotels and Leisure Holdings, Joob Joob Investments, Mzi Khumalo Family Trust, Simane Security Investments and interests in a R50-million private jet, the Raytheon 390 Premier 1 aircraft.
Khumalo argued in court papers that the Reserve Bank attached a substantial number of assets not owned by him or Mawenzi.
"The effect of the attachment and forfeiture was that none of my assets were attached, some assets of Mawenzi were attached and assets of third parties who were not related to the application, without any basis in law and fact," he said.
"The fact that the Reserve Bank has sought to unilaterally attach these assets on such a broad and all-encompassing basis, in circumstances where [I] neither own nor hold an interest in such assets is clearly indicative of the attitude and manner in which the [bank] has sought to deal with [me]."
He also argued that some of the companies were either liquidated, dormant or did not exist.
Fabricius ruled against Khumalo on the basis that he had failed to prove how the forfeiture personally affected him if the seized assets and shares did not belong to him. "At the time of lodging this application, on [Khumalo's] own version, he had no interest in any of these companies or assets.
"Accordingly, none of his rights could be adversely affected by the forfeiture and he had therefore no direct and substantial interest in the relief claimed," Fabricius said.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending
Latest Videos