Scrutiny into financial affairs of businessman who challenged movie mogul

The financial affairs of controversial KwaZulu-Natal businessman Sunny Gayadin - and how he managed to fund failed litigation over the ownership of Durban’s Natal Command - will come under scrutiny now that his company‚ Giant Concerts‚ has been placed in final liquidation.

Gayadin died in May 2017. His body was found with a gunshot wound to his head on land he was developing in Pietermaritzburg.

The liquidation application was launched by movie mogul Anant Singh who is seeking to recover more than R1-million he is owed in defending himself against what he says was “the tragic litigation” by Gayadin. The late businessman alleged Singh had been given the prime beachfront site by the eThekwini Municipality for a sweetheart price.

A final winding-up order against Giant Concerts was granted by Durban High Court Judge Themba Sishi on Thursday.

In the application‚ Sudhir Pragjee‚ the director of Singh’s Rinaldo Investments‚ alleges that Giant Concerts appeared at all times during the lengthy litigation - which went all the way to the Constitutional Court - to be a mere shell of a company.

Pragjee says the costs claimed - R360‚000 for the initial Pietermaritzburg High Court case‚ R403‚000 for the appeal before the Supreme Court of Appeal‚ and almost R300‚000 for the final Constitutional Court challenge - were approved by the courts in 2013 and 2014.

“After we won the cases‚ Rumila Gayadin (Gayadin’s ex-wife)‚ sought to deregister the close corporation to avoid paying‚” Pragjee said.

In November 2015‚ Rinaldo brought a successful high court application to re-register the company‚ incurring more legal costs.

Rumila Gayadin was then removed as a member of Giant Concerts and replaced by Shamish Sadab. In August 2016‚ the company was placed in voluntary liquidation.

Pragjee said this was done deliberately because in terms of the law‚ when a company is placed in voluntary liquidation there can be no insolvency interrogation.

“It is our intention to hold such an interrogation to establish how Giant Concerts was able to fund all the litigation and what happened to the assets it had‚” he said.

“We want answers so that we can proceed against those who initiated or funded the litigation.”

He said there was no dispute that Giant Concerts was insolvent‚ and the only hope of recovering the money owed was through such an inquiry.

In an affidavit by Rumila Gayadin in the re-registration application‚ she claimed Gayadin had told her the litigation was being funded by a consortium of attorneys.

“He informed me that their identities were kept confidential. He said they would contribute 75% of the costs and he would contribute 25%.”

She also claimed that after it became known that Gayadin had been convicted of “certain offences” (tax offences)‚ which disqualified him from being a member of Giant Concerts‚ “unbeknown to me” the member’s interest was transferred into her name.

“He told me that Giant Concerts had no assets‚ was not trading‚ and it was unlikely that it would ever be liquidated.

“I am an innocent victim of the actions of my former husband and his consortium. It is not I that embarked upon the litigation‚” she said.

She did not oppose the granting of the final winding-up order.

The master of the high court has also been directed to convene the inquiry.

READ MORE: