Ooh La La couple back in court
Former business partners and lovers, Marco Acolla and Rosannne Narandas are in court again - this time over their luxury flat.
|||Durban - Businessman Marco Accolla and his former business partner, Rosanne Narandas, were in the Durban High Court on Thursday listening to arguments over their Musgrave Road luxury flat.
The matter was set down on the opposed roll before Judge Themba Sishi, who reserved judgment.
Accolla approached the court to order the sale of the flat he bought with Narandas in July 2012, arguing that Narandas has refused to sell it.
Narandas lodged a counter-application, calling for Accolla to repay R1.5 million she apparently loaned him towards his half of the payment for the flat, at a 15.5% interest rate.
Accolla’s lawyer, advocate Garth Harrison, argued that this counter-application should be dismissed with costs because there had been no demand. He said Accolla wanted his partnership with Narandas dissolved because they were no longer able to work or live together, and argued that if this partnership was dissolved, the property they jointly owned should be sold.
He said they bought the flat in 2012 and had each paid R600 000 towards the initial purchase price.
On whether there was a loan between the pair, Harrison felt this should be referred to oral evidence because Accolla’s version was that there was never a loan. He said the money was to come from their joint business.
“If there was a loan, what were the terms and conditions of the loan?” Harrison asked.
Further, he said, the issue of a loan could not be argued as the time period for such a claim had lapsed. However, he said if the matter was referred to oral evidence it did not prevent the sale of the jointly-owned property in the meantime, and the proceeds of the sale could be placed in a trust.
Narandas’s lawyer, advocate Jay Naidoo, argued it was clear his client had no intention of giving up on the counter-application and said the matter should have gone to oral evidence instead of being brought to court.
He disagreed that the loan had lapsed, saying Narandas had claimed payment in her counter-application lodged in October 2014. He also said with prescription, a delay of a year was expected and argued for the matter to be dismissed.
Narandas said she had paid R3m, the balance of the purchase price, from an investment held in her name, and that half was a loan to Accolla.
Naidoo argued that the interest rate was agreed to and alternatively in the absence of this agreement, this was the rate Narandas was entitled to.
Daily News