- Dundee-based investment company Coin-it wants to have a warrant set aside and all the items removed from its premises during a raid returned
- Coin-it was placed under provisional liquidation by the court in February following an application brought by over 90 investors
- The company’s main activity was to provide directly or indirectly all kinds of construction and plant hire services
Dundee-based investment company Coin-it wants to have a warrant set aside and all the items removed from its premises during a raid returned.
The matter was argued in the Pietermaritzburg high court on Friday and judgment was reserved.
Coin-it was placed under provisional liquidation by the court in February following an application brought by over 90 investors.
They are trying to recover about R10 million allegedly owed to them by the company.
Coin-it accepted money from individuals to buy a vehicle such as a front loader, bus or truck. This payment was in the form of a “deposit” and then a monthly instalment had to be paid to the company. The investor did not see or take possession of the vehicle purchased.
Coin-it then allegedly leased out the vehicle. It was supposed to pay the investor monthly rental (for the vehicle purchased) or a portion of the money which it received.
The company’s main activity was to provide directly or indirectly all kinds of construction and plant hire services.
The warrant being challenged was issued on March 4, and the raid took place the next day.
Friday’s application was brought by Michael de Beer and eight others. De Beer is the chairperson of the Coin-it Club and the director of Bluebay Freight Solutions and DH Machine Manufacturing. The latter two companies were placed under provisional liquidation in July.
De Beer said in court papers that those who took part in the raid, which included the liquidators, turned the offices upside down. They also entered the premises without permission.
He said that the entire process, from the seeking of the warrant through to its unlawful execution, was tainted by the ulterior motive of obtaining documentation to launch the applications to wind-up Bluebay and DH Machine. He said that when the raid started at 7.35 am, the liquidators had not been appointed. They were only appointed after the master’s office opened that day.
Advocate John Suttner, SC, argued on behalf of De Beer and the others who brought the application that the two liquidation applications are based on documentation removed from the premises in the course of the unlawful execution of the unlawful warrant.
He said his clients need the warrant and its consequences set aside before the return date of the liquidation applications so that they can’t be used.
In addition, he said that during the raid, two personal computers were removed with personal photographs and images. However, these were later returned.
Advocate Alastair Dickson, SC, argued on behalf of the attorneys appointed by the provisional liquidators as well as the auctioneers that the provisional liquidators were appointed on March 2 by the insolvency panel of the Master’s office, and they were instructed to report on assets in 48 hours.
He said that from that date, the liquidators were entitled to act. He added there was nothing irregular or illegal about the warrant.