Your last comment, however, is quite an interesting one and opens up a host of relevant issues.
Firstly, I already smell that very first delay tactic I mentioned less than 24 hours ago...... well done!!
Secondly, why don't you just pay back the R 155 000.00 (plus costs) as ordered by the court?
Appealing it constantly will not make it go away.
Thirdly, even Secma's clients understand that they are duly contracted to Secma.
You and your two local cronies are the only ones claiming fraud........interesting, don't you think?
Fourthly, since you mentioned "fraudulently obtained monies", why don't you provide a breakdown of license fees collected each year, detailing the clients who actually authorised such debit?
Had a couple of interesting calls the past week regarding this very issue, so it should become public knowledge soon anyway.
Secma vs Safe Security Hermanus
No comments:
Post a Comment