Former Dimension Data Executives Challenge Court Ruling with Appeal

In a significant twist to the ongoing legal saga, former executives of Dimension Data have publicly declared their intention to file for an appeal following an unexpected decision by the Gauteng High Court. The judgment, rendered by Judge D Fisher on November 25, 2024, has sparked controversy and a strong response from the implicated parties.

The executives, who served under the global ICT giant now integrated into NTT Ltd., face allegations centered around a business empowerment (BEE) property transaction involving the sale of the Dimension Data Campus. According to the court's findings, there were question marks over the transparency and intentions behind the transaction, which was initially carried out to bolster NTT’s BEE score in South Africa.

The sale of the Dimension Data Campus in July 2019 to a subsidiary of a financial services group led by Ms. Sonja de Bruyn, a non-executive director at Dimension Data, was part of a broader strategy to address the BEE score weakness of NTT’s South African operation. The transaction, which court documents reveal was structured to offer NTT reduced operational costs, also aimed at enhancing long-term black economic empowerment. However, the court's criticism suggests potential discrepancies and intentions that warranted further examination.

It was in this context that, following the High Court’s judgments, the former executives felt compelled to seek an appeal, believing the conclusions drawn by Judge Fisher were both "unjustified and unfair." Amidst their preparation for the appeal, the executives are fervently attempting to dispel what they consider misconceptions propagated by the media about their roles in the transaction.

Despite the backlash and the legal battles, the implicated executives maintain that their actions were in line with genuine efforts to promote empowerment and gender equality. During their tenure at Dimension Data, according to their statement, they facilitated several transactions aimed at promoting transformation and sharing wealth with historically disadvantaged groups.

As the appeal process looms, the business and legal communities, as well as the public, await further developments with keen interest. The former executives’ fight to clear their names not only involves intricate legal arguments but also entails a battle in the court of public opinion, where they seek to reshape perceptions about their integrity and their professional conduct.