Heineken pursues flamboyant businessman Peter Matsimbe for R42.8m

Share current article via EmailShare current article via FacebookShare current article via TwitterShare current article via LinkedInMduduzi NonyaneOpens in new windowOpens in new windowEnter fullscreen mode displaying this image.ExpandHeineken Beverages International is suing flamboyant businessman Peter Matsimbe for R42.8m over allegedly unpaid liquor and beverage supplies. Story audio is generated using AI

Heineken Beverages International is seeking a judgment of R42.8m against flamboyant businessman Peter Matsimbe over alleged unpaid invoices for liquor and beverage supplies, citing a series of supply agreements and a personal suretyship dating back to 2022.

In a claim filed in the Gauteng high court in Johannesburg, the company alleges that Matsimbe’s business failed to settle invoices for products supplied between September 4 2023 and April 2 2024.

The claim, which includes interest and legal costs, centres on an alleged outstanding debt of R42.8m and the transfer of contractual obligations from Distell to the Heineken Group.

The disputed transactions involved 53 invoices issued for products supplied to Matsimbe. Heineken says the payment period expired without the amount being settled.

“Despite the lapse of 90 days from date of invoice, the last of which was dated April 9 2024, the principal debtor has failed to pay Heineken Beverages International the amount of R42,867,341.10, or any portion thereof, despite written demand,” the claim states.

The company is asking the court to order Matsimbe to pay the full amount, interest and legal costs on an attorney-and-client scale, including the costs of two counsel.

But the claim is not based solely on the supply transactions. Heineken also cites a suretyship it alleges Matsimbe signed in September 2022, when the relevant business operated under an agreement with Distell.

The claim states the original supply agreement was concluded on or about March 14 2022 between Distell and United Brands Beverages, trading as UBB, represented by Matsimbe.

The agreement governed the supply and sale of liquor products and natural beverages, including provisions regulating credit terms, payments, interest and legal costs.

Heineken alleges that Matsimbe subsequently undertook personal responsibility for the business’s obligations under a written suretyship.

“On or about 15 September 2022 … Peter Matsimbe bound himself in writing as surety for the due fulfilment of his obligations by the principal debtor to Distell,” according to the claim.

The company contends that the agreement made Matsimbe liable for amounts owed by the principal debtor, including interest and legal costs. Under the alleged terms of the suretyship, the guarantee would remain in force until Distell agreed in writing to cancel it.

The claim adds that Matsimbe bound himself as surety and co-principal debtor and waived certain legal exceptions that might otherwise have been available to him in challenging the debt.

The enforceability of that arrangement forms a key part of the claim because the original supply agreement and suretyship were subsequently transferred as part of changes to the businesses’ contractual arrangements.

According to the claim, Distell and Heineken Beverages South Africa concluded a distribution agreement on August 29 2023 providing for the transfer of distribution assets and the assumption of certain liabilities.

The original supply agreement and suretyship were transferred from Distell to Heineken Beverages South Africa in September 2023.

A separate sale-of-business agreement was also concluded on August 29 2023 between Heineken Beverages South Africa and Heineken Beverages International, covering the export business and its associated assets, contracts and debtor accounts.

The original supply agreement and suretyship were subsequently transferred to Heineken Beverages International on or about September 4 2023.

The company says the contractual arrangements entitled it to recover the outstanding amount.

A further supply agreement was concluded between Heineken Beverages International and the principal debtor, setting out the terms governing the products supplied during the period covered by the claim.

Heineken alleges that it fulfilled its obligations under that agreement.

“Heineken Beverages International duly complied with its obligations in terms of the second supply agreement,” the company said.

The company claims the principal debtor nevertheless failed to pay for the products delivered.

The papers identify Matsimbe as a director of the principal debtor during the relevant period, stating that he remained a director until on or about February 1 2024, when his wife became a director.

Heineken has included a company search in its court papers in support of the directorship information.

The company further argues that the National Credit Act does not apply to the supply agreement and suretyship, contending that the principal debtor is a juristic person with an annual turnover exceeding R1m and that the guarantee falls within the applicable statutory provisions.

Matsimbe’s legal battle with Heineken comes against the backdrop of previous disputes involving millions of rand and his high-profile marriage to television personality Ayanda Thabethe.

Matsimbe has also been embroiled in a separate dispute with businessman Jacobus Jansen over an alleged R22m debt. In August 2022, the Gauteng high court confirmed an order freezing assets linked to the dispute after finding that Matsimbe had failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the disposal of certain assets.

The allegations in Heineken’s claim have not been established by a court and the case remains subject to the legal process.

The Sunday Times has sought comment from Heineken Beverages International’s legal representatives. Matsimbe’s response to the allegations was not available at the time of writing.

Would you like to comment on this article?Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.

Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.