Kaizer Chiefs Football Manager Bobby Motaung is in trouble for failing to settle his debt with Pent-Up Investment.
According to the Sunday Times, the Amakhosi official purchased a property valued at R9 million through his company, Lakeshore Trading 224. The sale agreement was drafted by the respective authorities, but the latter has since not stuck to it.
In its submission to the Johannesburg High Court, Pent Up Investment, under boss Costas Couremetis, argued Bobby is not keen on paying the remaining R4.5 million.
‘He has not sought to dispute the indebtedness’
“Pursuant to a failure by Lakeshore to make payment of the purchase price for the property in full, the applicant instituted proceedings in the above honourable court and obtained judgment on or about November 12, 2009, in a sum exceeding R9-million, plus interest and legal costs,” the court was told.
“The indebtedness as it currently stands at the end of January 2024 is in the sum of over R4.3-million.
In fairness to the respondent, he has not sought to dispute the indebtedness since the judgment was granted against him. However, he has clearly not been able to pay the full sum, as and when it was due, even after having been given various reasonable and generous indulgences over many years,” he added.
Is Bobby just not willing to pay?
“The respondent has over all of these years lived a very opulent lifestyle, driving a Bentley motor vehicle; owning and living in a large immovable property in a very prestigious area, namely Houghton; wearing very expensive clothing and different, very expensive watches at our various meetings and generally portraying the image of a very successful businessman, who is extremely well off; and who occupies a considerable position in the eyes of society, throughout South Africa, by virtue of the prominent position which he occupies at Kaizer Chiefs Football Club,” Couremetis continued.
“If sequestrated, the respondent will no longer be able to prefer other creditors over the applicant, as he has done for some 14 years to date.
“Accordingly, I verily believe that the debt owing to the applicant is not the only debt which the respondent has, resulting in his playing creditors off against each other, so as to ‘play for time’ in regard to his debts.
“Put simply, it appears that the respondent is gainfully employed, with substantial income and many valuable assets, yet he fails to settle the admitted sum due to the applicant,” he concluded.
