INLSA
DURBAN: 290312
Sunny Gayadin is willing to pay 250 million Rands for the Natal Command land that was sold to Anand Singh for 15 million Rands by the Ethekwini Municipality.
PICTURE: GCINA NDWALANE
Movie maker Anant Singh’s controversial film studio plan for the prime Natal Command site on Durban’s beachfront was back on the cards yesterday after a ruling by the Supreme Court of Appeal.
But any hope of its being a final resolution in the dispute was dashed when Sunny Gayadin, the man who launched the legal challenge to the R15-million deal that the city signed with Singh eight years ago, said he would now take his fight to the Constitutional Court.
“I am not Father Christmas. Yes, I am a businessman. But I am also doing it for the ratepayers of this city,” he said. “I will not back down because that deal was not kosher.”
Informed of the possibility of a further court challenge, Singh told The Mercury: “We feel good that the appeal court has endorsed our position and our rights. We respect the rule of law and the courts and whatever needs to happen must happen.
“We are absolutely committed to this project. That is the reason we have fought for it, and we now look forward to working with the city and provincial authorities to map a way forward with respect to the plans for the property and the special zoning required.”
Asked whether the city was still keen on the project, Speaker Logie Naidoo said: “So much has happened since this started… Cape Town has built up its own film industry.
“I am not sure what the thinking is now in the executive committee or the administration. We need to sit down and look at what is in the agreement and see if we are still committed to it.
“We would not be able to sign a deal like this today, not with the Municipal Finance Management Act,” he said.
In 2003, the city sold the property – said to be worth about R71m at the time – to Singh by private treaty after he promised to build a R700m film studio that would boost the local economy.
Gayadin, who owns concert organiser Giant Concerts, was outraged at the deal and sought a review of the decision.
Two years ago, he was victorious when Pietermaritzburg High Court Judge Jerome Mnguni described the sale process as “contaminated” and ordered the city and the MEC for local government, who approved the deal, to reverse the sale.
Singh, with the blessing of the eThekwini municipality but without its active support, took the case to the Supreme Court of Appeal, which yesterday ruled on the “single, decisive” issue that Gayadin did not have legal standing to bring the application.
Acting Judge Clive Plasket, with four judges of appeal concurring, said Giant Concerts had litigated in its own interests. But with its registered address in Pietermaritzburg, it did not have “ratepayer standing”.
The judges ruled that only those who had an interest in the “interests of the borough” could object to a sale by private treaty and they likened Giant Concerts to a “ratepayer in Johannesburg, or a businessman in Cape Town” who would have no interest in the matter.
They pointed out that Giant Concerts had launched the application in its own commercial interests, not as a challenge to the principle of the sale by public treaty but on the basis that the site should have been sold to it, instead of to Singh.
They said their decision did not mean that the municipality was above the law or that if the sale was tainted it should not be reviewable, just that “this is not the right person in the right proceedings”.
A senior lawyer in Durban, who did not wish to be named, said that in essence, the ruling meant that Singh had an enforceable contract with the city.
“But the fact that the SCA (the appeal court) did not deal with the merits means a Constitutional Court challenge is probably the best way forward because the deal remains tainted in the public eye.”
Gayadin, who still refuses to disclose what his plans are for the 21ha site, but says he will pay the city R250 million for it, said he and his wife, members of Giant Concerts, owned about 30 properties in Durban and were ratepayers.
“This issue, that I had to be a ratepayer, was never raised by the other side (Singh), or by the municipality, so I think the judges have erred,” he said.
“I cannot let this matter lie. I have been approached by many people who want to join in, and I believe that ratepayer associations and even opposition parties will join me in this appeal.
“The ratepayers are being kicked in the teeth. Judge Mnguni gave eight valid reasons why the sale was bad and the appeal court did not deal with any of them.
“I want the Constitutional Court to look at the entire issue,” Gayadin said. 8P4
