Ambassador seeks contempt order in seven-year battle over R200m trust

South Africa’s former ambassador to Japan, Smuts Ngonyama , has accused a company linked to lucrative mining investments of spending more than seven years defying court orders and deploying an endless stream of legal challenges to block the Khululekile Family Trust from exercising rights over assets believed to be worth more than R200m.

Ngonyama now wants the directors of BEE investment vehicle Eyabantu Capital Consortium (ECC) declared in contempt, arguing that every avenue of appeal has been exhausted and their continued refusal to comply amounts to a deliberate assault on the authority of the courts.

He says the continuing refusal to rectify the securities register, issue the trust’s share certificate and provide access to company records deprives the Khululekile Family Trust of the shareholder rights previously recognised by the court, including participation in meetings and access to financial information. Each day of non-compliance, he argues, constitutes a continuing breach of the court’s orders

The latest application filed on July 31 marks another chapter in a legal battle stretching back more than seven years over the Khululekile Family Trust

Sunday Times understands that the dispute is over two high court orders granted on May 6 2025. One directed that ECC’s securities register be rectified to recognise the Khululekile Family Trust as the holder of a 6.5% shareholding in ECC, while another ordered the company to grant the trust access to key corporate records, including financial statements, bank records, directors’ records and shareholder information. According to Ngonyama, neither order has been complied with.

Instead, the ambassador alleges the respondents have adopted what previous courts describe as a “Stalingrad defence”, bringing successive applications, changing legal strategies and appointing new lawyers in an effort to postpone compliance.

“Each adverse order is met not with compliance but with a new proceeding, a new firm of attorneys and a new theory. The judgment found that the strategy is delay. The current threats are its latest iteration, and the orders in the applicants’ favour remain, seven years on, unperformed.”

Ngonyama argues that the respondents’ opportunities to challenge the judgments have now come to an end.

According to the application, the operation of the 2025 court orders was suspended while applications for leave to appeal and reconsideration proceedings were underway.