"Legal action was instituted in the form of an interdict to obtain Assupol material in the possession of M&M. We reached an agreement of settlement in respect of relief where Assupol received the information related to our brand. It is unfortunate that this matter had to be settled in this way," said Nzembela.
Basson declined to comment.
In their court papers, Assupol said they decided to change their marketing strategy following Masekela's death.
"What influenced this process was the untimely demise of the applicant's brand ambassador ... Mr Masekela was very well known, and very talented musician loved by all South Africans. When he passed away, his life was celebrated all over the globe. So, when he passed away the applicant had to seriously rethink its marketing strategy," the papers read.
The court papers also confirmed that the agreement between the two parties was a verbal one.
"The first respondent (M&M Pictures) also contended that a verbal agency agreement was agreed to between the applicant and the first respondent, in terms of which agreed fees in the sum of R8m, payable over a 12 month period, in instalment of R666 666.67 were to be paid. This is correct in part, but also incorrect in part," read Lianda Brenkman's affidavit on behalf of Assupol.
The life assurance entity was reconciliatory in its approach, saying a drawn-out legal beef would not help them recoup money they were losing as a result of not being able to flight their new adverts on TV. They also noted how it would be difficult for them to quantify any damages claim against M&M.