The Municipal Employment Pension Fund (MEPF), Akani Retirement Pension Fund, and businessman Zamani Letjane, among others, have filed a suit against Ndou Attorneys Inc. and its owner, Phumudzo Ndou, at the Johannesburg High Court, seeking more than R100 million in damages.
In the application filed on 27 July, the applicants say Ndou and his law firm defamed the MEPF, Akani, and all the directors associated with both entities through a series of events, which included paid adverts in a daily newspaper, roadshows across the country, TV interviews with well-known TV news channels, and social media commentary, as well as the petition that the lawyer and his firm caused disgruntled MEPF members to revolt against them.
In his affidavit, Letjane stated that Ndou and his firm had made statements that Akani had captured MEPF, and that the former had been involved in corruption and bribery, including stealing money from the MEPF.
Letjane stated that Ndou had made disparaging claims that the Akani boss had bought the MEPF building for R30 million, though it was valued at R52 million.
In the application, Letjane stated that there were claims in the petition that he was in an undisclosed relationship with the deceased MEPF principal officer, Margaret Le Grange, with whom he colluded to control the fund.
He demands that Ndou and his law firm pay R105 million in damages for the defamation, reputational damage, and loss of income.
Thug tag
He griped about Ndou referring to him as a “well-known criminal” and “thug” during a TV interview with eNCA news channel on May 4, 2025.
“The plaintiffs reasonably apprehend that the defendants intend to and will continue to make the MEPF, Akani, and Letjane impugned statements and/or substantially similar statements, unless a final interdict is granted. The plaintiffs have no adequate alternative remedy to prevent further dissemination of these defamatory or injurious statements,” said Letjane in his affidavit.
He asked the court to restrain Ndou and his law firm from making, publishing, encouraging, repeating, or facilitating the publication of or making impugned statements.
The court is yet to decide if the matter should be heard and on which date.
