- Dave and Soonius’ SA Assets Should Be Security
- Duo Fugitives of the Law — Court Told
South African businessmen David van Niekerk and Edwin J. Soonius, accused of misappropriating E335 million from Status Capital Building Society, should provide security for legal costs from their assets in South Africa, the Eswatini High Court heard Monday.
The pair, described in court as fugitives from the law, are said to have depleted assets in Eswatini, prompting ESW Investments Group to seek enforcement of a costs order in a foreign jurisdiction where the two allegedly have significant holdings.
Representing ESW Investments, advocate Comfort Mamba argued that Van Niekerk and Soonius’ continued litigation — including a rescission application — was “vexatious,” particularly given a ministerial directive that halted all court proceedings related to the Ecsponent matter.
The directive, issued in December 2024 by Finance Minister Neal Rijkenberg, established a task team to recover misappropriated investor funds and explicitly instructed all parties to suspend litigation to allow the team to work without interference.
The directive emerged as a key element in Monday’s proceedings through a supplementary founding affidavit filed by Mamba.
“In December 2024, Minister Neal Rijkenburg established the Ecsponent Task Team, mandated by a resolution by the House of Assembly to pursue the recovery of the misappropriated funds. To ensure the Task Team’s effectiveness, the Minister explicitly required all parties to suspend litigation and allow the team to proceed unhindered,” reads the affidavit.
ESW Investment Group complied with the directive, while Van Niekerk and Soonius allegedly chose to continue litigation, specifically by filing an application to rescind a previous judgment.
Their persistence, in light of the minister’s order, was described in court as vexatious. Mamba argued that the pair’s questionable financial standing in Eswatini further justified the need for them to furnish security for costs.
ESW Investment Group — formerly Ecsponent Swaziland (Proprietary) Limited and Ligagu Investments (Proprietary) Limited — is represented by Zweli Jele of Robinson Bertram. The group is seeking E2.5 million in security for costs from Van Niekerk and Soonius, who are represented by Kwanele Magagula of KQ Magagula Attorneys, instructing Advocate Louis Hollander. Investors are represented by Phesheya Maphalala of S.V. Mdladla and Associates.
The minister’s directive, according to the applicants, was intended to give the task team space to focus on recovering funds allegedly misappropriated by Van Niekerk and Soonius.
However, the two businessmen have challenged the validity and authority of the directive.
Their objections are outlined in the answering affidavit in the ongoing application for security for costs.
Van Niekerk claims that Mamba’s affidavit is irregular and pro non scripto (as if it were never written), arguing that ESW Investment Group and Ligagu Investments failed to obtain the necessary leave from the High Court to file it, as directed on March 27, 2025.
He contends that the court had merely postponed the application to allow such leave to be sought — which he says was never done.
As a result, Van Niekerk questioned the very existence and legal standing of the application and the directive it referenced.
He further claimed that the annexure submitted by Mamba, which purportedly contained the directive, made no mention of suspending litigation.
Van Niekerk added that “the Honourable Minister, with due respect,” had no authority to order litigants to halt legal proceedings. He insisted that he and Soonius were not continuing with litigation, but rather seeking to rescind a default judgment granted in error.
He said the rescission application was filed in July 2024 — allegedly six months before the directive was issued.
Van Niekerk also rejected the suggestion that they were engaged in vexatious litigation, saying they had obtained an undertaking from the applicants’ attorneys not to proceed with the enforcement of the judgment while the rescission application was pending.
On the issue of eroded shares within Status Capital Building Society, which the applicants argue makes recovery of costs difficult, Van Niekerk said SCBS’s financials were already public when the application was filed.
He added that the value of any shares or assets he and Soonius may hold in Eswatini was irrelevant to the security for costs application, which was based solely on their status as foreign nationals residing in South Africa.
He also argued that ESW’s admission that it could execute the judgment in South Africa exposed the application as “an abuse of process” intended to obstruct the rescission case.
Van Niekerk strongly denied claims that he and Soonius are fugitives from the law and insisted their rescission application is bona fide and has merit.
Judge Khontaphi Manzini reserved judgment in the matter.
