Mbabane :A pharmaceutical supplier has alleged that he is the target of an alleged E24.7 million extortion attempt linked to a government health tender valued at approximately E27 million.
This is according to an answering affidavit deposed by pharmacist Sumoy Ghosh on Monday, the managing director of Pride Oasis (Pty) Ltd, who is opposing an application brought by Africa Harvest (Pty) Ltd. The matter also cites Bongani Sibusiso Dlamini as the second respondent, the Eswatini Development and Savings Bank as the third respondent, and the Ministry of Health as the fourth respondent.
In his affidavit, Ghosh disputes the basis of the application and raises preliminary legal objections, arguing that the applicant has no standing to bring the matter before court. He states that the applicant’s claim is founded on documents he describes as forged and legally invalid.
Ghosh submits that the applicant’s case relies entirely on annexures which he alleges are fraudulent. He invokes the legal principle that fraud vitiates all transactions, arguing that no legal rights can arise from what he terms a criminal act. He maintains that neither he nor his company ever entered into the agreements alleged by the applicant.
He further contends that the application is defective due to what he describes as a fatal absence of a cause of action. According to Ghosh, the applicant claims entitlement to E24.7 million without providing supporting financial records. He states that there are no bank transfer slips, invoices, or accounting documents demonstrating that such an amount was ever paid to Pride Oasis.
Ghosh argues that the applicant is seeking a freezing order against the company’s bank account based on what he characterises as vague and unsubstantiated allegations, which he says do not meet the evidentiary standards required in motion proceedings.
In addition, he accuses the applicant of failing to disclose material facts to the court. He claims that the applicant misrepresented the role of the second respondent, Bongani Sibusiso Dlamini, by suggesting that he was part of Pride Oasis’ corporate structure. Ghosh states that Dlamini is not a director or officer of the company and is a “total stranger” to its operations.
According to Ghosh, this alleged misrepresentation was intended to create the impression of an internal dispute within the company when, in his view, the matter involves external parties attempting to interfere with the business.
Setting out what he terms the factual narrative, Ghosh explains that Pride Oasis is a specialist medical supplier that was awarded government orders for life-saving medical goods in late 2025, with a combined value of approximately E27 million. He states that the company operates independently, with its own credit lines and established supply chains in India.
He recounts that in January 2026, the company received notice that the orders were at risk of cancellation due to delays in estimated times of arrival (ETA) for the goods. It was during this period, he claims, that Dlamini and Mqemane Felix Matsebula approached him.
Ghosh alleges that the two individuals did not present themselves as financiers but as facilitators who claimed they could use their connections to protect the tenders. He states that they proposed acquiring a stake in the business in exchange for their assistance, a proposal he says he rejected.
Following his refusal, Ghosh alleges that the individuals resorted to forgery. He claims that annexure “AH2” was manufactured using his signature and the company stamp, which he says were taken from an unrelated document and inserted into the purported agreement without his consent.
He further alleges that Dlamini signed annexure “AH3” on behalf of Pride Oasis despite having no authority to do so. Ghosh maintains that Dlamini has no legal capacity to bind the company in any contractual arrangement.
Ghosh describes the alleged E24.7 million facilitation fee as commercially absurd, noting that it would amount to approximately 90 percent of the total value of the tender. He states that such a figure cannot reasonably represent a legitimate business arrangement and instead characterises it as an instrument of extortion.
On the merits of the case, Ghosh denies several allegations contained in the founding affidavit. While he acknowledges that the applicant is a registered business entity, he disputes claims that it funded the procurement of goods. He maintains that Pride Oasis financed its operations using its own resources and supply networks.
He reiterates that the agreements relied upon by the applicant are unknown to the company and were never concluded by its directors. As such, he argues that no partnership or facility agreement exists between Pride Oasis and the parties cited by the applicant.
Ghosh also raises concerns about the timing of the application. He refers to provisions in the alleged procurement agreement which, he says, required that an agent be added as a co-signatory to the company’s bank account within seven days of signing. He notes that the applicant waited more than 50 days before initiating urgent court proceedings, which he argues undermines the claim of urgency.
According to Ghosh, this delay supports his assertion that the documents were fabricated after the fact in an attempt to construct a case against the company.
He further states that, even if the agreements were valid, the legal position would limit the agent’s rights to claiming commission or fees, provided the contract could be proven. He argues that in this instance, the applicant has failed to establish the existence of a valid contract and has not pursued a claim for commission.
Ghosh also disputes any suggestion that Dlamini had apparent authority to act on behalf of Pride Oasis. He contends that any claim arising from the alleged agreements would lie against Dlamini personally, rather than the company.
In relation to the relief sought by the applicant, Ghosh argues that the requirements for an anti-dissipation interdict have not been met. He states that the applicant has made only general allegations without sufficient evidence to justify freezing the company’s bank account.
He also challenges the authenticity of documents presented by the applicant, including credit notes and payment notifications contained in annexure “AH4.” Ghosh points to what he describes as anomalies, including missing details about goods supplied and spelling errors such as the word “Dislaimer” appearing in place of “Disclaimer.”
Discussion about this post