Bernadette Wicks9 May 2024 | 12:28

SCA to hear legal wrangle over Hlaudi Motsoeneng's R11.5m 'success fee'

In December 2021, the High Court in Johannesburg found the award, which Motsoeneng got for brokering a deal for two new channels with MultiChoice, was unlawful.

SCA to hear legal wrangle over Hlaudi Motsoeneng's R11.5m 'success fee'

FILE: African Content Movement leader Hlaudi Motsoeneng in studio with Radio 702 presenter Eusebius Mckaiser. Picture: Kayleen Morgan/Eyewitness News

JOHANNESBURG - The legal wrangle over former SABC COO Hlaudi Motsoeneng's R11.5-million "success fee", is heading to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) this month.

In December 2021, the High Court in Johannesburg found the award, which Motsoeneng got for brokering a deal for two new channels with MultiChoice, was unlawful. 

He was ordered he give it back, with interest.

This on the back of a Special Investigating Unit (SIU) probe.

He was subsequently denied leave to appeal by both the High Court and the SCA.

But he was then given another chance after successfully petitioning the SCA president for a reconsideration of his case and it is now set down for hearing next Wednesday.

The SABC's Governance and Nominations Committee, or GNC, awarded Motsoeneng his "success fee" and one of the High Court's key findings was that it did not have that power.

Central to Motsoeneng's appeal bid is his insistence that this was a mistake and that the High Court should have found the GNC was in fact uniquely placed to "adopt a policy on a new matter such as a success fee" and acting within its terms of reference. 

He also said in his papers that the High Court got it wrong when it found he was dishonest.

But even if the award was unlawful, he said he only got some R6 million in the end, with the rest going to the taxman and he shouldn’t have to fork out the full R11.5 million, let alone the interest.

The SABC and the SIU, for their part, are opposing the appeal bid and said, in their papers, that the High Court got it right.

When it comes to the tax, their position is that this was ultimately a loss the SABC incurred and that he could claim tax deductions.