- Tebelelo seeks reinstatement as director in ex-husband’s companies
- Wants Rose removed as director
- Her aim is to embarrass, harass and disentitle me from my benefits out of my late husband’s estate – Rose Seretse
LETLHOGILE MPUANG
Former Botswana Ambassador to the United States of America (USA) Tebelelo Seretse has dragged the former Director of the Directorate on Economic Crime (DCEC) Rose Seretse to court demanding reinstatement as director in two of her late ex-husband’s companies Boswe Construction (Pty) LTD and Letso Estate Services Limited. The former ambassador also seeks to remove Rose Seretse as director at Letso Estate Services Limited.
According to court papers, the late Dr Tlholego Seretse was owner of the companies jointly with his ex-wife Tebelelo Seretse. The two divorced in 2005 after 20 years of marriage. At time of his passing in 2014, Dr Seretse was married to Rose Seretse.
Tebelelo (The Applicant) states in her first court proceedings that she discovered that she was secretly removed as Director of in Letso Estate Services Limited in 2011. She has citied Letso Estate as first Respondent, Rose Seretse as Second Respondent (in her capacity as co-executrix in the estate of the late Tlholego Edirilwe Seretse) Dirai Seretse, Third Respondent (as co-executrix in the estate of the late Tlholego Edirilwe Seretse) Monyatsi Ngwanyanafela (Fourth Respondent) and The Registrar of Companies and Intellectual Property as fifth Respondent in the matter.
The former ambassador and cabinet minister is requesting the High Court to set aside both her removal and Rose’s appointment in the company.
“The purpose of this application is to have this Honorable Court declare, invalidate/and or set aside both the removal of the Applicant as director of the First Respondent and appointment of the Second Respondent in her personal capacity as director of the First Respondent” reads Tebelelo’s founding affidavit.
She argues that “The decision to remove me as a director and shareholder of the First Respondent was unlawful and null and void ab initio because there was no special resolution made by the board of the directors, nor was there a notice given for a meeting intended for my removal. Further, I have not tendered my resignation as a director of the First Respondent.”
Emphasising the non-compliance with the Company’s Act Tebelelo states that “No opportunity was afforded to me to make representations. The Respondents decision is therefore liable to be set aside.” The outspoken former politician notes that “The purported appointment of the second Respondent as director the First Respondent on 2 February 2015 is also invalid and void ab initio, unlawful and of no force and effect since there was no resolution for her appointment in the terms of section 150 of Companies Act.”
Tebelelo Seretse argues in her papers that “The Second Respondent elected not to respond to my attorney’s having been requested to provide a resolution for her appointment. With respect this conduct on her part is untenable. As a director she should be able to explain how she was appointed director and how I was removed as such. It is fiduciary duty which she owes to me as a shareholder.” And that as a result she concludes that “There maybe be legal consequences flowing from the impugned asked if they are not declared null and void ab initio, hence my application.”
In her second case against the former director of the crime busting agency, Tebelelo also argues that she was removed unlawfully as director of Boswa (PTY) LTD, which has cited as the First Respondent, Rose Seretse as Second Respondent (in her capacity as co-executrix in the estate of the late Tlholego Edirilwe Seretse) Dirai Seretse, Third Respondent (as co-executrix in the estate of the late Tlholego Edirilwe Seretse) and The Registrar of Companies and Intellectual Property as Fourth Respondent.
“The decision to remove me as director in the First Respondent was unlawful and ought to be set aside because no special resolution was ever made by shareholders for my removal as such in terms of section 151 of the companies Act, nor was there notice given for a meeting intended for my removal. Further I have not tendered my resignation as director of the First Respondent.
The Third Respondent, who is a shareholder, informs me that no special resolution was ever made by shareholders for my removal as such in terms o 151 of Companies Act, nor was there a notice given for a meeting intended for my removal.
No opportunity was afforded to me to make representations. The Respondent’s decision is therefore liable to be set aside,” reads her second founding affidavit.
Responding in her answering affidavits Rose Seretse described Tebelelo’s application as self-serving and taken to embarrass, harass as well as disentitle her from the benefits of her late husband’s estate.
“I am advised and accept that the Applicant has failed to establish her status as a director and shareholder of the 1st Respondent. For this sole reason her application stands to be dismissed. To the extent that I mentioned in the beginning of my affidavit that this application and the relief sought is self-serving and taken to embarrass, harass and disentitle me from my benefits out of my late husband’s estate and my minor child who at the time of his father’s passing on the in 2014 was only 4 years old. I pray that the application be dismissed with costs on a punitive scale,” concludes Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Botswana Regulatory Authority (BERA)’s answering affidavit.
The two cases are scheduled for October and November 2018. Tebelelo Seretse is represented by Tshiamo Rantao of Rantao Kewagamang Attorneys. Rose Seretse is represented by Khulelekane Moyo of Mothumisi Attorneys