Hangwani Maumela’s Ferrari sells for R10.1m as family pursues appeal

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.ExpandMaumela’s R14m Ferrari has sold for R10.1m despite his family challenging the tribunal’s decision to authorise its sale A luxury Ferrari linked to businessman Hangwani Morgan Maumela has been sold for R10.1m at auction, despite his family having filed an application for leave to appeal against the Special Tribunal’s decision authorising its disposal.

The sale of the 2022 Ferrari SF90 Stradale, which had an estimated market value of about R14m, comes amid a legal dispute over whether the vehicle was sold at a fair price and whether the curator bonis appointed to preserve assets linked to the Tembisa Hospital corruption investigation properly accounted for its value.

The Ferrari was sold when the BiddersChoice auction closed on November 11, after Maumela’s family failed in an urgent high court bid to stop its disposal pending its challenge to the tribunal’s order.

But the auction outcome does not resolve the questions raised in the family’s application for leave to appeal against the original decision.

Sunday Times understands that the Maumela family’s appeal against the Special Tribunal’s decision to authorise the sale of the Ferrari had already been argued, but judgment had not yet been handed down when the vehicle was auctioned on November 11.

At the centre of the dispute is the family’s contention that curator bonis Jacobus Gideon Louw van Wyk was seeking to sell the Ferrari for less than its market value, despite valuations and offers which they argued showed that it could fetch more than the minimum price authorised by the tribunal.

On August 13, judge Bernard Ngoepe authorised Van Wyk to sell the vehicle for no less than R9.5m. The order directed that the proceeds be deposited into a special interest-bearing trust account and used towards maintaining assets under curatorship, subject to the approval of the Special Investigating Unit (SIU).

The order also expressly prohibited the curator from using the proceeds to pay his own fees.

In their application for leave to appeal, the family challenged the tribunal’s findings on the vehicle’s depreciation, the costs of retaining it and the decision to authorise its sale.

They argued that the tribunal had accepted the curator’s case despite there being no evidence that the Ferrari was rapidly losing value.

The application stated: “Even though there is no evidence that the vehicle is rapidly depreciating, the applicant’s application still stands.”

The family argued that the tribunal had relied on the ongoing expenses associated with the Ferrari and the possibility that the proceeds from its sale could generate a return if invested.

Hangwani Maumela They also took issue with the judge’s reliance on the vehicle’s purchase price as evidence of depreciation, pointing to valuations and offers which they said demonstrated that its value had been maintained.

Two sworn valuations conducted in July placed the vehicle’s value at R10.2m and R10.165m. The family also relied on an offer of R10m from Apatite Investments and another of R10,999,995 from Fouche Motors.

In its appeal papers, the family challenged the tribunal’s reasoning on the costs of preserving the vehicle, arguing that the approach could have consequences beyond the Ferrari.

It described the reasoning as: “Fallacious reasoning, as it would mean you can sell all vehicles because of insurance costs and all immovable property because of the costs associated therewith. This is the opposite of preservation.”

The family’s argument was that the costs of maintaining an asset under curatorship could not, on their own, justify selling it without properly considering its market value and potential appreciation.

The valuation dispute was also canvassed during the tribunal proceedings, when Ngoepe questioned the curator’s legal team about the higher offers placed before him.

“What must I make of the fact that there are people who actually say that they are willing to buy it for 11?” Ngoepe asked.

The curator’s counsel, however, argued that the offers did not take account of the expenses already incurred in preserving the vehicle.

“Those people are not taking into account the expenses and disbursements already incurred to preserve that asset,” counsel told the tribunal.

The curator’s legal team maintained that storage, insurance and other costs had to be considered when determining a reasonable selling price.

During the hearing, counsel explained that the Ferrari had cost R5,000 a month to store and that insurance had to be maintained to preserve the asset.

The curator had also approached Ferrari for advice on its value. His legal team told the tribunal that the manufacturer had indicated that a reasonable offer would be R9.5m, taking into account the vehicle’s circumstances.

Ngoepe returned to the question of whether the curator should accept the lower amount when higher offers were available.

The exchange continued: “Should your client be allowed to sell it for 9.5 if he is to sell or for 11?”

The curator’s counsel responded: “M’Lord, if he can sell it for 11, obviously he will sell it for 11, but Maumela is not prepared as the so-called owner to agree to the sale.”

The family also used the proceedings to seek the curator’s removal, accusing him of dishonesty and misrepresenting information to the tribunal about the vehicle’s depreciation and the circumstances surrounding its preservation.

During the argument, their counsel told Ngoepe: “He has demonstrated clear dishonesty and a predilection to mislead the tribunal.”

The curator’s legal team rejected the allegations, maintaining that he had acted transparently and had approached the tribunal because of the costs associated with preserving the vehicle.

The tribunal dismissed the family’s counterclaim seeking the curator’s removal, with costs on an attorney-and-client scale, including the costs of two counsel.

The family subsequently approached the high court in an urgent application seeking to prevent the Ferrari from being sold or transferred while its challenge to the tribunal’s decision was being pursued.

The SIU said the high court found that the Special Tribunal’s order was interim in nature and was not automatically suspended by the filing of an application for leave to appeal. The court also found that the family had failed to establish the requirements for the urgent relief it sought.

The dismissal allowed the sale process to proceed, but it does not, on its own, establish what happened to the separate application for leave to appeal against the tribunal’s original order.

The Ferrari subsequently went under the hammer through BiddersChoice, with the auction closing on November 11. It fetched R10.1m, above the tribunal’s minimum authorised selling price but below the nearly R11m offer cited by the family in its appeal papers.

The auction attracted interest from prospective buyers. The vehicle had travelled about 311km, while its estimated market value was put at approximately R14m. Bidding reportedly started at R8m, subject to confirmation by the curator.

In an affidavit filed in the urgent proceedings, the family said it had been informed in August that the vehicle had already been sold to Scuderia South Africa for R9.6m.

When approached for comment, Boela Croukamp, who represents the curator bonis appointed by the Special Tribunal, said his client was not available to make media statements.

“Your letter refers. We act on behalf of the Special Tribunal’s appointed curator bonis. Apart from noting some discrepancies in your story, we do not hold a mandate to make media disclosures. Unfortunately, our client is not available to make media statements at this stage,” Croukamp said.

Croukamp did not specify which aspects of the story he believed contained discrepancies, nor did he address the status of the Maumela family’s application for leave to appeal.

The Ferrari is among the luxury assets preserved as part of the SIU’s investigation into alleged corruption and maladministration at Tembisa Hospital, where about R2bn is alleged to have been looted through irregular procurement.

The SIU’s investigation has resulted in the preservation of assets linked to individuals and companies allegedly connected to the procurement schemes. The preservation process is intended to protect assets while the investigation and related legal proceedings continue.

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.