Millions looted: Edgars wins court battle against former merchandise executive

BULAWAYO – Edgars Stores Limited has secured a victory in its ongoing court battle against former employee, Jabulani Mlotshwa, who stands accused of looting millions of dollars from the retail giant, paving the way for the case to proceed to trial.

The court dismissed a preliminary point raised by Mlotshwa, a Merchandise Executive, regarding non-compliance with Rule 42(9) of the High Court Rules, 2021.

Justice Joel Mambara upheld exceptions raised by Mlotshwa with respect to claims 3 and 4 of Edgars declaration, but granted the company leave to amend its declaration within 10 days to clarify the specific duty breached and the precise loss incurred.

The dispute between Edgars and Mlotshwa dates back to 2016, when Mlotshwa was employed by the company. Edgars alleges that Mlotshwa engaged third-party suppliers without the company’s knowledge or authority, resulting in significant financial losses.

The company claims that Mlotshwa disbursed sums amounting to ZAR 388,280.25, ZAR 433,912.33, ZAR 2,795,187.93, US$1,385,810, ZAR 34,340.63, and US$80,433 in furtherance of these transactions.

“The plaintiff (Edgars) contends that the defendant’s (Mlotshwa) failure to follow the established procurement and stock management procedures resulted in non-delivery or substandard delivery of merchandise, thereby inflicting significant patrimonial loss.

“Following the discovery of these irregularities, the defendant resigned on 13 January 2023 purportedly to pre-empt disciplinary proceedings. The plaintiff has since sought redress for the losses incurred.

“In response, the defendant has raised an exception arguing that the plaintiff’s pleadings are vague, embarrassing, and deficient in establishing a cause of action based on delict.”

In his judgement, Justice Mambara cited the importance of balancing procedural compliance with the need for substantive resolution of disputes. The court’s decision allows the matter to proceed to trial on the substantive issues.

“The defendant’s preliminary point regarding non-compliance with Rule 42(9) is dismissed.

“The exception raised by the defendant with respect to claim 2 and claim 5 of the plaintiff’s declaration is dismissed.

“The exception with respect to claims 3 and 4 is upheld; however, the plaintiff is granted leave to amend its declaration within 10 days from the date of this judgment to clarify the specific duty breached and the precise loss incurred,” Justice Mambara stated.

“The matter, including any amended pleadings, shall proceed to trial on the substantive issues as originally set out, in accordance with the directions given by Zhou J.

“Costs of these proceedings shall be awarded as costs in the cause.”