Key points
- Namco sued Benco for damages after Benco repudiated a joint venture agreement the two had signed on July 9, 1992 covering South African marine diamond interests.
- Benco initially denied signing the agreement but conceded during trial after forensic evidence, then abandoned its primary defence and called no witnesses.
- Benco had separately signed a US$60 million joint venture with BHP of Australia over the same South African concessions after the date of the Namco agreement.
- The court upheld Benco’s subsidiary defence that certain contract terms were void for vagueness, but found that CEO John R. Wilson’s conduct was disgraceful; Wilson has since resigned.
The company brought an action for damages against Benguela Concessions (Benco) following Benco’s repudiation of a joint venture agreement signed July 9 1992 concerning various South African marine diamond interests.
Benco pleaded as its main defence that no such joint venture agreement had been signed with the company. Subsequent to the date of signature Benco signed a US$60 million joint venture with BHP of Australia over its South African concessions.
During the trial Benco was forced to concede, following forensic evidence, that the Namco joint venture had indeed been signed. It abandoned its primary defence and called no witnesses.
Benco’s chief executive, John R. Wilson, second defendant, resigned from the company. Benco’s legal team ceased acting on its behalf.
Benco raised as a subsidiary defence that the joint venture was unenforceable as certain terms were void for vagueness. The court has upheld this interpretation, but has held that Benco’s chief executive officer, Mr John R. Wilson, acted badly throughout and that his conduct was disgraceful.
Having considered the judgement and having taken legal advice, Namco will be applying for leave to appeal against the judgement.
Namco’s action has no bearing on its own concessions nor on its current operations.
Alastair Holberton, president and CEO of Namco, says the company was fully justified in bringing the action against Benco. The company proved that the contract existed and that it was signed. The resignation of Benco’s chief executive during the court action is ample evidence that Benco had a significant case to answer and the company will be pursuing the appeal with vigor.
This release has been approved by Namco’s South African attorneys.
