Sharika Regchand
INSTEAD of owing the Economic Development Department R3.4 million, the director of the defunct Stables Wine Estate says the department owes them R1.2m.
Ralph (Tiny) van Niekerk says this in papers filed in response to the department’s Pietermaritzburg High Court application for an order authorising the sheriff to take possession of the estate’s movable property and assets, and hold them as security for the R3.4m debt.
The Stables was to receive R3.4m in funding from Gijima, the department’s support programme. However, only three payments amounting to R2.2m were received. The final tranche had not been paid.
Van Niekerk said he could not understand why the department believed it had the right to the wine estate’s property. He added that the wine estate had invested R1.6m of its own money into the project.
“The applicant (the department) has benefited from the project and will continue to do so in perpetuity. All monies paid… were invested into the project.
“The respondent (the estate) has accordingly received little to no benefit from its investment in the project. The respondent has been frustrated in its efforts to obtain the final tranche of payment and the applicant is accordingly indebted to the respondent for that amount,” he said.
In the initial application, the department head, Carol Coetzee, said that according to its agreement with Gijima, the wine estate had to use the money to make it more competitive and sustainable by increasing its number of vines.
It also had to expand its existing wine producing capacity by acquiring equipment, expanding the winery and encouraging more tourists.
Another key requirement of the agreement entered into in December 2007 was that the estate form a trust with the families of its workers appointed as its beneficiaries. However, the estate had failed to do so.
Coetzee also said that the estate had failed to provide Gijima with reports and feedback on how the project was being implemented.
In addition, it:
l Could not provide documents to show how the funds were used;
l Had failed to keep proper accounting records;
l Had failed to present proof of the delivery of services as well as proof of training courses and of work already completed on the project; and
l Had failed to produce evidence that a trust had been formed.
Van Niekerk said the estate had complied with all its obligations in terms of the agreement, as far as they were possible. The matter comes before a judge again on January 13.
The Mercury has reported that Van Niekerk and his wife, Judy, had put their Nottingham Road property on the market and had re-established themselves as wine exporters and travel writers in Cape Town.
