Tilahun denies instructing clientsto shun business

United Africa Group’s lawyer Boris Isaacks says the company’s founder, Haddis Tilahun, did not directly urge clients to stop business dealings with Erongo Petroleum.

Isaacks was reacting to a report published in The Namibian on 10 April, titled ‘Ex-Namcor manager joins entity owing national oil company N$120m’.

Isaacks also said they did not lose a case in which they were taken to court by Erongo Petroleum.

The Namibian’s report revealed that a corporate conflict arose as a result of Erongo Petroleum owing the United Africa Group (UAG) over N$100 million in unpaid oil supply debt.

The report said when Erongo Petroleum failed to honour its debt, Tilahun started approaching clients, warning them not to do business with Erongo Petroleum, according to court documents.

The article further said documents show that Erongo Petroleum then approached the court to stop the UAG’s founder from doing so.

Isaacks told The Namibian yesterday that Tilahun in his personal capacity was not party to the court proceedings.
“The allegations that Mr Tilahun approached Erongo’s clients to inform them not to do business with Erongo is false,” he said.

In the report, The Namibian noted that Erongo Petroleum won the case on 29 February and the High Court told the UAG to stop approaching clients that belong to Erongo Petroleum.

High Court papers stated: “UAG Investments (Pty) hereby is interdicted from directly or indirectly distributing and/or further distributing the document (including similar or statements of like import) marked Annexure “G” to any of the applicant’s clients named in Annexure “X” attached to this order, pending the institution and final determination of the process contemplated in paragraph 4 below.”

“UAG Investments is hereby interdicted from asserting any right against any person to return petroleum products described in the Consignment Agreement, attached hereto marked Annexure “X1”, pending the institution and final determination of the process contemplated in paragraph 4 below.”

The High Court gave Erongo Petroleum seven days to institute an action against the UAG in the High Court whereby the legality and/or enforceability of the Consignment Agreement is to be determined by that court.

“In the event of the applicant failing to institute the action contemplated within seven court days from date of this order, the orders shall forthwith lapse. Costs of the application are awarded to the applicant (Erongo Petroleum) against the UAG, including the costs of one instructing and one instructed counsel, and in the event of opposition to the application, also against such respondent opposing.”

Isaacks yesterday said the urgent application brought by Erongo Petroleum against the UAG was struck from the roll for lack of urgency.