BTC, BnR legal battle heats up
Sharon Mathala | Sunday June 23, 2024 10:08
BnR had dragged BTC to court demanding a whopping P2.7 million from its former sponsor for what BNR classified as sponsorship amount, loss of income and reputational damage due to a breach of contract by the ‘green’ company.
The standoff between BTC and the organisers of one of Botswana’s most loved annual event, reached fever pitch when a deputy sheriff stormed BTC head office Wednesday morning to attach the corporation’s property.
The debacle, reminiscent of another battle between a sponsor and the Maun Horse race in 2022 as well as the 2015 Joe Thomas legal battle, was full of drama as the deputy sherrifs sought to enforce a writ order whilst BTC lawyers challenged the legality of the documents.
But what lead to the chaos?
The conflict is traceable back to a contractual dispute that has been a subject of a court process since 2019. According to BnR, BTC breached the parties’ contract by failing to honour the end of the agreement. BnR organisers maintain that BTC failed to deliver the agreed-upon services, impacting the event’s success and leading to reputational damage and loss of income.
According to the judgment delivered on Monday, a contract between the pair was signed on October 15, 2019. The contract was for two years and contained provisions regarding sponsorship and obligations of both parties and termination rights.
The BTC, based on court papers had agreed to sponsor BnR for P250, 000 in cash each year and to provide Wi-Fi to the value of P18, 350 and in return, the BTC was entitled to 300 standard tickets, a VIP area dedicated to BTC, social media coverage, radio interviews and all advertising placements. In the first year of the deal, the full payments were made. But the following year, COVID-19 hit. Several restrictions were imposed by government, as such BnR could not hold a physical event. As a result, BnR resorted to hosting virtual events. Due to the restrictions, BTC argued that it could not continue to sponsor the event. “It was the 2nd defendants’ position that these restrictions justified its none payment of the sponsorship funds to the plaintiff (BnR). It argued that the COVID-19 pandemic made the parties’ respective obligation incapable of performance. It submitted that because of supervening impossibly of performance, it was not liable to the plaintiff for any losses sustained by it,” reads Justice Zein Kebonang’s judgment in part. However, the judge held a different view. The judge ruled that the contract between the two parties was not conditional. “The parties’ sponsorship agreement did not contain a ‘force majeure clause in it nor could it be implied. A term can only be implied and the contract determine upon the happening of some event, which renders its performance impossible if the contract itself provided that such term or condition to be implied in the contract itself,” the judge reasoned.
The judge further said BTC cannot rely on COVID-19 as a supervening impossibility because it was not. On Wednesday, a day after the judgment was delivered, BnR and deputy sheriffs stormed BTC head office, armed with a writ of execution to impound the corporation’s movable property much to the alarm of onlookers and employees at the BTC premises as the legal battle played out in public. Journalists on the scene witnessed about five tow trucks attempting to load BTC-branded vehicles. The sheriffs had attached 19 BTC-branded vehicles, which were within the premises. Some of the cars attached by the sheriffs include the Toyota GD 6s, Yarises and Corollas among others.
Insiders revealed that attempts to reach a consensus have been unsuccessful after BTC lawyers intervened to stop the vehicles from being towed away. The case has since escalated, resulting in legal actions that have now played out in the public view, underscoring the high stakes and heightened emotions involved in the matter.
As the legal battle continues, the implications for both BTC and BnR are significant. For BTC, the case highlights the importance of contractual enforcement and corporate accountability. For BnR, it raises questions about the future of one of Botswana’s most beloved cultural events and the potential impact on its reputation and operational viability.
The outcome of this legal confrontation remains uncertain, but one thing is clear; the public is closely watching as these two ‘giants’ clash in a battle that could reshape the relationship between corporates and entertainment promoters.
Speaking to the Botswana Entertainment Promoters Association (BEPA) president, Gilbert PP Seagile, he expressed that the association is closely following the matter and backing BnR.
“This development is healthy and the best to happen to our industry in a while. For years, big cooperates and sponsors have been exploiting promoters and getting away with it because we don’t have resources and funds for lawyers. Many sponsors have used our events for publicity but then turn around and not deliver on their agreement. We have been exploited over time because our industry has not been taken seriously,” he said. Efforts to reach BTC were futile as their phones rang unanswered.