The court deciding on whether or not National Consultant SC will be dissolved, has deferred the case to April 4, 2013, after the first hearing on March 15, 2013.
It was on December 10, 2012, that three shareholders of the company, all sons of the man who established it, Sima Elala, filed charges at the Federal First Instance Court. They did so claiming that the manager, Assefa Bekele, was not properly managing the company and that, rather, he was undermining National in favour of Ziyas Design Group Plc, another company, they claimed Assefa had established and was leading.
Works that were done by National were posted on Ziyas’s website, they claimed, and Assefa had resisted calls to audit the company.
Assefa, in his defence, argued that the company was well organised and making higher profits.
National was established 40 years ago with 150 shares. Sima had 80 shares and was the general manager of the company until 1981. He relinquished his position, due to illness, and appointed Assefa, his deputy, as general manager, transferring 30 shares to him, in addition to his previously held 55 shares.
Sima also transferred 17 shares to each of his two sons, Amanuel and Mulualem, and 16 shares to a third son, Kaleb, in 1997. He died the following year.
National was the consultant for the Ethiopian Airlines Cargo terminal, the Ethiopian Red Cross general building, a 20-storey building, occupied by the Maritime & Transit Services, Jijiga airport and the Amhara Regional State Police Training College.
The company accused Assefa of the establishment of a new company at National’s expense. The plaintiffs also claimed that they learned, from the report of an independent auditor, that there were inappropriate business activities.
The defendants, the company and Assefa, responded to the Court that the plaintiffs had no legal and factual ground to claim for dissolution.
The defendants told the Court that the plaintiffs’ father was the founder and major shareholder of the company, and that he had urged his children to trust Assefa, with regards to all managerial duties.
An auditor was hired to audit the company’s activities for the 1998 to 2008 fiscal years, according to the charge. But, the defendants claimed that National was audited regularly and that the plaintiffs themselves had been actively participating in the selling of shares.
“I am working as a manager for National only and I am not the manager for Ziyas or for any other company,” said Assefa, during his defence.
However, National’s lawyers claimed that there was a connection with Ziyas Design Group Plc, but only based on mutual interest. National’s profits improved for 2009 and 2010 because of the cooperation between the two companies, the defence claimed, adding that Ziyas made up for National’s shortage of engineers.
The defence did not deny that National’s works were posted on Ziyas’s website, but stated that it only served as good promotion for National.
National has attached 10 documents and two witnesses for its statement of defence. Assefa has told the Court that the same documents were good enough as evidence for himself, too. The Court will reconvene in April to give an order for the defendant’s preliminary objection that the plaintiffs have no right to file a charge against the defendants.
Leave a Reply