Last week, the Siya crew reported a twist in the Highlands Park sale saga after Co-director and shareholder Sinky Mnisi decided to take legal action to oppose the sale. However, what are Mnisi’s legal options on the matter?
Although there has been no official comment from the Premier Soccer League as yet, the Siya crew reported late in August that the sale of Highlands Park to Tim Sukazi, subject to ratification from the League, is all but a done deal.
It appears that it was third time lucky for Sukazi in his quest to own a topflight status after failing to secure the statuses of both Bloemfontein Celtic and Bidvest Wits earlier this year.
The Siya crew has learnt via several sources that all outstanding financial securities have been met and that Highlands Park will most likely relocate to Mpumalanga and be renamed TS Galaxy.
The sale of the club’s PSL status is reportedly worth in the region of R30 million, though it excludes Highlands’ top players, in Peter Shalulile and Mothobi Mvala, and possibly Luckyboy Mokoena.
However, this news has not been taken kindly by Highlands’ co-director and shareholder Sinky Mnisi, who has all but indicated that he is taking the legal route to oppose the sale of the club in which he owns a 20% stake.
It is believed that Brad Kaftel, the majority shareholder of the club, is said to have bought both Mnisi and Larry Brookstone out of their stake in the club, before selling it. However, this has been refuted by Mnisi.
Speaking to the Siya crew, prominent lawyer and former footballer, Tristyn Coetsee, has given some legal insight on the matter, and where Mnisi potentially stands.
“It would ultimately depend on the contents of the shareholder's agreement and the memorandum of incorporation of the company. The provisions of these agreements would govern what payments would be made, the procedure to buy out a shareholder and so on.
“Obviously Mr Mnisi owns 20%, which makes him a minority shareholder. If he feels aggrieved, he can apply in terms of section 163 of the Companies Act to the High Court, but he would need to prove a number of things to be successful. He needs to prove that the action taken by the other shareholders is prejudicial, and not only that but also that it was unfair.
“I don’t foresee that the process has been prejudicial or unfair because it is governed by the agreements, therefore the process to be followed and agreed upon is in writing, so they would have had to follow proper procedure, which I am sure they did because they wouldn’t go through all the channels of selling the club only to end up failing because the procedure was not followed,” Coetsee explained.