Broke Afriski plans scaled down re-opening



MASERU – Following a long drawn-out legal scuffle between the firm and its founder and CEO, Wessel Bosman, the High Court has backed Afriski Mountain Resort’s decision to reopen its facilities. One of Bosman’s primary arguments was that the current shareholders had stolen his firm, despite the fact that he had been fully paid after signing forms that required him to cede control of his company to the present shareholders.  He argued that he had not been paid and that he had been stripped of his rights to Afriski and leisure. This, according to the firm, was a surprising statement, and it believes it is one of the reasons the court agreed to grant him the specific temporary order.

While the company has been given the green light, the main issue is that its coffers are empty, and even the profits that have been made are nearly depleted.  As a result, operations will change in the near future because some are costly to run and require a lot of electricity to work efficiently.

“In the future, we will be open for business but we will not open the slopes this year because that is too expensive to run.  “That means we can only bet on natural snow, otherwise we won’t be able to open the slopes. We will also not operate the sky lifts since they require resources that we do not have. “Those who will enjoy the sky slopes during the natural snowfall will be those who will assume the risks on their own and are aware of the inherent risk involved. Afriski will not be held liable and will not be able to provide simple access to the slopes,” Afriski Director of Legal and Compliance, Thabo Lerotholi, said this week.

In a legal battle that has impacted many investors, Afriski management and the board of directors claimed that they were taken aback when they received an ex-parte interim order in February ordering the company to cease operations and activities with immediate effect. Ex parte orders are directives that are issued without waiting for a response from the opposing party.

In most cases, such as a temporary restraining order, they are orders that are only in effect until further hearings can be convened. “If a party seeks an ex parte application with the consequences of obtaining an interim order, it means that he must have convinced the court that there was a need for it and that there was imminent danger for that matter because it has profound repercussions for the other party that is being interdicted, and that is the position in which, as Afriski, we found ourselves,” Lerotholi explained. 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *