Court dismisses Solbeth Protection Services' R230 million claim against eThekwini Municipality
Security company Solbeth Protection Services and Risk Management has been dismissed by the Durban High Court in a R230 million claim against the eThekwini Municipality.
Image: Facebook
The Durban High Court has dismissed a massive R230 million claim against eThekwini Municipality by security company Solbeth Protection Services and Risk Management, owned by Siyabonga Kevin Xulu.
The company failed to produce evidence of a valid agreement or justify the exorbitant amount claimed.
In a harsh ruling on Thursday, Judge Murray Pitman dismissed the application, stating that Xulu abused court processes and that the city and its ratepayers should not bear the unreasonable costs arising from the application.
“The application is dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale,” Pitman ruled.
Xulu initially filed an urgent notice of motion, claiming he rendered protection services to the municipality from October 2019 to September 2020, demanding R41.7 million for this period.
He further sought R188.6 million for services allegedly rendered from 2020 to 2025, plus R896,579.10 in additional charges.
In his affidavit, Xulu claimed that former city manager Sipho Nzuza first advised him of security problems in 2016/17, leading to him performing remedial work for which he was paid.
Xulu alleged that security concerns persisted, resulting in him signing an engagement letter with Nzuza on January 23, 2019, and being paid for all invoices from January to September 2019. He claimed to have continued providing services from October 2019 to June 2025 based on further agreements with Nzuza.
However, the municipality contested Xulu’s claims, arguing that the engagement letter only covered an eight-month contract and that no valid contract existed beyond September 2019.
The city also disputed whether the services were rendered from October 2019 to June 2025, and pointed out the lack of a detailed explanation of the exact nature and extent of the services. Furthermore, the city stated that Xulu had failed to provide proof that Nzuza had validly procured any services.
Judge Pitman noted that Xulu had launched a similar application demanding R41.7 million in the Pietermaritzburg High Court in 2021. “That action is still pending,” he explained.
The judge severely criticised the urgency of the current application, stating that Xulu knew from 2022 that the municipality would not pay post-2019 invoices, yet he continued to ‘render services’ until 2025 and only then launched this application.
“The alleged urgency was self-evidently created by the applicant (Xulu). Proceeding with the application as an urgent application was therefore entirely unjustifiable.”
The judge also highlighted that Xulu’s claims were unliquidated and required proof by way of action, not an application.
He further noted the inadequacy of the evidence, stating: “The invoices relied upon provide sparse to non-existent information justifying or in support of such amounts. The respondent (municipality) requested particularisation years ago. That has not been provided even in this application.”
Judge Pitman ruled that pursuing the matter as an application, given the material disputes of fact, was both irregular and unjustifiable.