Zinc Fence v. Market Square in Supreme Court

It’s a case about a business deal that took place almost fourteen years ago. On one side, is the nation’s largest conglomerate that says it just wants to receive what it paid for. On the other, is a much smaller entity in financial terms, but in its own right the most powerful voice in the media. To paraphrase the Amandala: it’s Market Square versus Zinc Fence. News Five’s Janelle Chanona reports from the Supreme Court.

Janelle Chanona
“Any comments Mr. Hyde?”

Evan X Hyde
“Talk to Mose.”

Janelle Chanona
“Mr. Hyde, any comments regarding the start of your case today?”

Evan Mose Hyde, Krem Radio
“The battle is on, I guess. That’s about it. Continue this afternoon.”

Janelle Chanona
“Do you maintain this is about malice, to come after you after thirteen years?”

Evan Mose Hyde
“Absolutely.”

Janelle Chanona, Reporting
This morning the case of Sagis Investment versus Krem Radio began before Chief Justice Abdulai Conteh in the Supreme Court. Both sides agree that in June 1994, Sagis lent Krem seventy-five thousand dollars but the legal quarrel is over the purported sale of fifty thousand shares in the radio station, representing ten percent to its equity. On the stand, the chairman of Krem’s board of directors, Evan X Hyde testified that he did sign a share transfer instrument and his father, Charles B. Hyde Sr., admitted that a cheque for twenty-five thousand dollars from Sagis was later deposited in Krem’s bank account. But share certificates were never issued to Sagis.

Janelle Chanona
“Shouldn’t there have been a notice to say look there’s a problem with the way we’ve arranged the share part of our agreement so we have to go back …”

Michael Young, Krem’s Lead Attorney
“Well, things were missed by a number of persons and it was possible perhaps for it to be rectified if they had gone through the process. That did not take place and time when by.”

Thirteen years in fact, which according to Krem’s lead Attorney Michael Young, bolsters his client’s claim that the lawsuit is malicious.

Michael Young
“The pre-emptive clause says that you have to offer it to other shareholders before you can proceed with a transfer to a stranger. The pre-emptive clause is contained in the articles. The articles in the company registry and Sagis—that’s the Ashcroft company—should have checked that. They did not and therefore, the transfer was annulated as far as we are concerned.”

Janelle Chanona
“Do you maintain that the length of time that has elapsed is statute barred?”

Michael Young
“Well, it’s not … we have a claim that it is statute barred or in the alternative that they’re guilty of what is called in law, laches which means unreasonable delay. The point is that this is something that they slept on from 1995 really until 2007. And then the mystery remains; why all of a sudden come to claim these shares? We say that there is some mischief in that. Malice is the only, we think, logical explanation but that is a matter for the court to determine.”

Janelle Chanona
“How would you prove that though? Malice is a tough thing to assert and…”

Michael Young
“Well it’s like so many things in the mind. You know the mind is not something that you can see up on a screen. You have to infer it from the circumstances and from the events. Here it is that Krem is not a company that is just bursting with cash and you leave that company alone and all of a sudden you come and say that: yes, I am a shareholder. Then you have to infer from the circumstances together with what has happened on the programmes and declare and fight. Well, not really fight but the very, very strong criticisms that have come from the Kremandala structure against the Ashcroft group of companies.”

Janelle Chanona
“Did your clients attempt to settle this financially and that was turned down?”

Michael Young
“Yes. Well, what happened is that Mr. Hyde—Evan X Hyde—offered to return the funds as he thought was the proper thing to do. It’s one thing in 1994 for a company to get funding from an entity that is considered to be friendly. In 2007 now, they indicated that they want to get into the company. For what reason? And then they want to appoint an inspector. Certainly, it is the best thing and the wise thing to resist that attempt on the part of the Ashcroft Company.”

Sagis’ legal representative Vincent Nelson admits his clients want to “live in good terms with Krem” and are suing to have their ten percent ownership in the radio station reflected in the Companies Registry. Reporting for News Five, I am Janelle Chanona.

As for why they waited more than a decade to pursue their rights, Sagis Director Phillip Osbourne says attempts to obtain the shares were made between September 1994 and January 1995 and while “the matter slipped off the radar”, it was always considered an “administrative” matter. Osbourne says he realised they didn’t have the share certificates while his files were being reorganised in 2007. Arguments in the case will continue on Tuesday.