INLSA
Lolly Jacksons widow Demi
The future of Durban’s most popular strip joint is being thrashed out in the high court where slain sleaze boss Lolly Jackson’s widow Demi is pitted against her husband’s former partner, a man who claims his share of the profitable enterprise rests on a handshake.
Shaun Russouw says he and Lolly had an oral agreement around ownership of the club Teazers, in Springfield Park, a business that was earning Lolly at least R100 000 a month at the time he was murdered in May 2010.
Demi Jackson claimed in court this week that since her husband had been gunned down, Russouw had not paid her any rent for the Springfield Park club, nor had he shared any of the profits from Teazers, and he continued to use the Teazers name illegally.
Russouw in turn has threatened to go to court to contest Lolly’s will, which left everything to Demi, saying his partner promised him the Durban business.
The fate of Durban’s Teazers now lies in the hands of Acting Judge Maurice Pillemer.
In essence, he has to decide whether or not Russouw and the club should be evicted from the Springfield Park premises – effectively shutting it down – or if there ever was an “oral partnership agreement” between Russouw and Lolly.
Among the documents both parties put up to prove and disprove the partnership arrangement is an e-mail from Russouw’s accountant, which suggests that Lolly was getting about R100 000 a month from the Durban operation.
The sparring between Demi and Russouw began last year when Jackson, through Interactive Trading Pty Ltd, the company she inherited from her husband, applied to the Durban High Court for an order ejecting the club from the Aloefield Crescent premises the company owns.
She claimed there was an oral lease agreement concluded in February 2008 in terms of which Russouw would pay rent of R20 000 a month.
She said Russouw had not paid anything and, at that time, owed more than R360 000.
Russouw said this was not true. The “partnership deal” between Lolly and him was that Lolly would provide the venue, and he would run the club.
He says he is owed about R2 million for improvements “which constituted a loan to the partnership”.
Profit would be shared “as and when it became available”.
He claims the partnership still exists and accuses Demi of going after him because he intends contesting Lolly’s will, which left everything to her, in spite of Lolly’s promising him that he would inherit Durban Teazers.
While that matter was still pending, Demi headed back to court with an urgent application earlier this year, still contesting the existence of any oral partnership agreement but saying if there was one, she had now cancelled it. She wants access to the books and wants a liquidator appointed to sort out who will get what.
Russouw, she says, is still paying absolutely nothing in rent, the business is mainly cash based and she is entitled to see the bank accounts.
Russouw says he is offsetting the rent against what he is owed for improvements.
And Demi can look at the books if she wants to.
“She is attempting to curb my resources to prevent my challenge to the will by embarking on a series of litigation,” he said, referring to a lawyer’s letter she had also sent attempting to stop him from trading as “Teazers”.
He too suggests that a liquidator be appointed to “assist with proper accounting and debatement” but wants to continue trading while this happens.
When the matter was argued on Friday, advocate Alan Lamplough, for Demi, said first prize would be the ejectment order because this would “be a rejection of the concept of the existence of the partnership”, the alleged terms of which he labelled “severely improbable”.
He urged the judge to be “robust”, saying that “not paying rental and occupying the premises on the never, never”, could not be allowed.
However, he said, should that order not be issued, then the judge should appoint a liquidator.
Advocate Archie Findlay, for Russouw, said Demi could not bring application for ejectment and to contest the partnership because one undermined the other.
“She has to choose. Either they elect that there was no partnership agreement and persist with the ejectment, or they say there was an agreement and persist with that application.”
The judge said he would give his ruling this week.
