Pio-Trans, which operates and manages another wing of Rea Vaya BRT, has filed papers in the Joburg High Court to oppose an application by a Joburg company to liquidate it.
In its replying affidavit, which we have seen, Pio-Trans, which operates Rea Vaya Phase 1 A, a business wing of City of Johannesburg’s Rea Vaya BRT, has pleaded with the court to dismiss the application by Gioberti Investments with costs because as it has no merit.
Gioberti Investments, owned by Joburg businessman Mochele Noge, wants Pio-Trans to be wound up, saying the company is unable to meet its financial obligations and its liabilities exceed its assets.
He said the company was unable to pay him millions of rand and also owed the taxman over R64-million.
Pio-Trans chairperson Nomazotsho Memani said Gioberti was not a creditor of Pio-Trans and therefore lacked the requisite locus standi. She also said Pio-Trans was not insolvent as alleged by Gioberti.
“All debtors of Pio-Trans are paid well on time. These timeous payments of service providers and creditors when their debts become due and payable show that Pio-Trans is nowhere near insolvent.
“The applicant’s assessment of Pio-Trans’ financial status is superficial, as the only factors the applicant considered are the company’s assets vis-a-vis the company’s liabilities, but that assessment does not in any way provide a full picture.”
She said Noge’s claims that Pio-Trans was failing to pay its debtors were false because the fair value of the assets of the company equalled or exceeded the fair value of its liabilities.
“It appears that the company will be able to pay its debts as they become due in the ordinary course of business for a period of 12 months after the date on which the test is performed, or in the case of a distribution/dividend, 12 months following that distribution/dividend declaration. On this basis, this application ought to be dismissed,” says the affidavit.
Memani also said Pio-Trans had appealed against South African Revenue Service (Sars) assessments and applied for the suspension of the payments of the quantum.
“In addition, Pio-Trans did a risk management exercise and sought tax and legal advice. In this instance, the contingent liability of the payment to Sars is the
only factor that may have bearing on Pio-Trans’ cash flow. But since the Sars dispute is pending, the only time this will have a bearing is when an appeal process is finalised, and typically appeals for this nature take years to be finalised,” she said.
She disputed that Pio-Trans owed Gioberti money. She said Noge, who is the director of Gioberti, was appointed CEO of Pio-Trans on April 1.
She said the board deliberated on the proposal of engaging Gioberti as a service provider for the sole purpose of Noge receiving his remuneration.
On June 30 2021, Pio-Trans obtained legal opinion concerning the legal implications emanating from the proposed remuneration structure and his appointment.
She said at the time of his appointment and throughout his tenure, Pio-Trans ’ HR department had wanted him to update his personal details such as his bank account and tax information for security reasons, and also to add him on the company payroll, but he refused and was suspended on June 16 2022.
“Throughout the year, Noge had been pressing the board to appoint Gioberti as a service provider and insisted on funnelling his remuneration through into its coffers.
“On 18 August 2022, Pio-Trans issued a letter of suspension, but, despite the letter of suspension, we were aware that we still had to pay Noge his remuneration,” she said.
He was charged with, among others, insubordination, disobedience, misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, bringing the company’s name into disrepute in respect of the accused appointment as chief executive officer and his remuneration.
She said the disciplinary hearing for these charges was supposed to be on November 15 and 16 2022, however, Noge advised the prosecutor for the hearing that he would not be present because of proposed settlement negotiations.
“Finally on October 31, Noge was paid his remuneration in his personal capacity as it ought to have been from the start. From his payment, he was paid back for two months and his normal month’s salary with deductions made for tax and the unemployment insurance fund.
From the onset, I wish to emphasise to this court that Gioberti never was a service provider and in turn, Gioberti was never a creditor of Pio-Trans . For these reasons, the respondent prays this application be dismissed with costs.”
Matter of Fact
- In our previous edition dated February 19, under the headline “Broke Rea Vaya Must Close Shop”, we incorrectly stated that it was Rea Vaya instead of Pio-Trans which operates one wing of City of Joburg’s Rea Vaya BRT called Rea Vaya Phase 1A.
- The fact is Rea Vaya BRT is operated and managed by two bus companies, Pio-Trans (Rea Vaya Phase 1A) and Litsamaiso (Rea Vaya Phase 1 B).
- The story inadvertently stated that it was Rea Vaya that was facing liquidation, thereby creating an impression that it was the entire company on the brink of being wound up.
- We regret the error and apologise to Rea Vaya BRT for the inconvenience caused.
Follow @SundayWorldZA on Twitter and @sundayworldza on Instagram, or like our Facebook Page, Sunday World, by clicking here for the latest breaking news in South Africa. To Subscribe to Sunday World, click here.
