…demands M39 million for alleged fabric debt
Moorosi Tsiane
A fresh legal battle has erupted between textile giant Presitex Enterprise and its alleged United Arab Emirates supplier, Nazimada Textiles FZE, with the latter demanding more than M39 million for fabrics it claims were supplied but never paid for.
Nazimada—allegedly owned by Presitex’s former finance manager Sharmala Roya, who is currently a fugitive after allegedly fleecing the company of close to M1 billion—has approached the Commercial Division of the High Court seeking payment of USD2 080 316.10 (about M39.5 million).
The company claims Presitex failed to settle invoices for fabrics delivered between January and July 2023.
The new court papers were not filed by Roya herself, but by Khrishma Baraiya, an India-based woman who says she is the secretary of Nazimada. She claims the two companies entered into a business relationship in October 2021.
According to Ms Baraiya, the parties formalised their relationship through a sales agreement signed on 1 October 2021.
“On 1 October 2021 Nazimada and Presitex entered into a sales agreement,” Ms Baraiya states in the court papers.
Under the agreement, she says, Nazimada was responsible for sourcing textile fabrics from outside Lesotho, particularly from countries such as India.
“The material, express, alternatively implied terms of the agreement were as follows: that the applicant would source fabrics from outside Lesotho in countries such as India as found suitable. The agreement set out detailed technical and quality standards governing the fabric shipments,” she says.
Ms Baraiya says one of the requirements was that each container could carry no more than three shades of fabric, with detailed documentation specifying shade information, roll numbers, lengths and weights to avoid confusion during production.
“Shade information should be specified on packing list against every roll including the net weight and gross weight of fabric.”
She claims Nazimada was also required to provide sample materials together with bulk shipments to ensure consistency in colour and quality.
“The washed shade blanket must be sent along with the bulk,” she states.
According to Ms Baraiya, the contract also required clear separation of shades during packing and loading, as well as transparency regarding defects.
“The shades should be separated and clearly marked in the packing list.
“In the packing, the defect points of each roll must be specified on the packing list,” she claims, adding that defects were limited to twenty per hundred running square yards.
Ms Baraiya alleges that other quality specifications related to the fabric’s stiffness, hand feel and colour fastness, which had to meet agreed standards in both dry and wet conditions.
“The agreement also defined acceptable roll sizes and quantities. The quantity allowance was plus or minus three percent, with a minimum roll length of thirty-five yards and a maximum roll length of one hundred and thirty-five yards,” she says.
She also says most fabric rolls had to be delivered in a single piece.
“Eighty percent of the rolls had to be in a single piece while a maximum of twenty percent could consist of two pieces. Where a roll contained two pieces, both had to be of the same shade.”
Ms Baraiya further alleges that Nazimada was required to submit fabric testing and inspection reports before shipments were dispatched.
“The supplier of the fabric was required to submit a fabric test and inspection report based on internal quality assurance before shipment.
“Additional documentation requirements included detailed packing lists showing roll numbers, lengths, defect points, widths and shades. Each roll also had to be labelled with the purchase order number and other identifying information, while stickers were used to distinguish different colours and shades. Cargo weight per container was also restricted.
“The actual cargo weight should not exceed 24 tons per container,” she says.
Ms Baraiya claims Nazimada fulfilled its obligations and supplied fabrics to Presitex at the company’s request.
“The applicant duly complied with her contractual obligations,” she says.
She also states that the deliveries were made over several months in 2023.
“The applicant complied with her obligations by delivering fabric at the special instance and request of the respondent during the period January to July 2023.”
However, despite allegedly receiving the goods, she claims Presitex failed to pay the outstanding invoices.
“The respondent failed to pay for the delivered fabric,” Ms Baraiya submits.
She says Nazimada initially attempted to resolve the matter without litigation.
“When the respondent defaulted in payments, the applicant engaged it through email correspondence.”
Ms Baraiya says she personally contacted Presitex employees demanding payment, but the debt allegedly remains outstanding.
“The respondent is indebted to the applicant in the amount of USD2 080 316.10, which at the current ruling exchange rate translates to M39 529 005.90, which amount is due, owing and payable and has remained unpaid,” she claims.
Nazimada now wants the court to order Presitex to pay M39 529 005.90 for goods allegedly delivered at its request.
Disputed debt linked to liquidation battle
The latest lawsuit emerges against the backdrop of an ongoing legal and criminal battle surrounding the 2023 liquidation of Presitex.
Nazimada previously petitioned the Commercial Division to liquidate Presitex, claiming the company owed it more than USD2.2 million for fabric supplies. Justice Moroke Mokhesi granted the liquidation order in September 2023.
However, the company’s liquidator, Kenneth Hlasa, challenged the legitimacy of the debt in August 2024, arguing in separate court proceedings that there was no evidence Presitex owed Nazimada the money.
Mr Hlasa claimed documents in his possession indicated that Presitex had already paid in full for the raw materials before they were shipped, with letters of indemnity allegedly confirming payment.
He also raised concerns about a possible conflict of interest, noting that Roya—alleged owner of Nazimada—previously worked as Presitex’s Finance and Administration Manager at the time of the transactions.
The liquidation itself is also under scrutiny after the Directorate on Corruption and Economic Offences (DCEO) launched investigations into an alleged M1 billion fraud and money-laundering scheme involving shell companies reportedly listed as suppliers to Presitex and its parent company, CGM Group.
Several individuals linked to the scheme have since been charged in the Maseru Magistrates’ Court, while some suspects, including Roya, are believed to have fled the country.
At the time of the liquidation, the company’s real shareholders were already embroiled in a legal battle to regain control of their firm after Madhav Vasant Dalvi, a former director and chief executive officer, allegedly fraudulently transferred company shares to himself.
On 19 October 2022, Dalvi allegedly transferred 999 of the 1 000 issued shares in CGM and Presitex to himself. The transfer was later rescinded by Solandra Inc. on 5 June 2023, and the matter was reported to the DCEO in July 2023.
Dalvi is accused of creating a network of shell companies involving his wife Sushama Madhav Dalvi, their son Chaitanya Madhav Dalvi, Roya, CGM employee Asitha Medawewa, Presitex manager Jitech John Babu, and employees Tseko Alphonce Bohloa and ’Mathabo Klass. The companies were allegedly used as conduits to defraud CGM of nearly M1 billion over several years.
Investigators say the companies were falsely listed as suppliers of raw materials to CGM, when in reality they allegedly acted as brokers used to justify payments.
Most of the suspects—except Dalvi, his wife, son and Roya—were charged in the Maseru Magistrates’ Court on 15 May 2024. They were later released on M10 000 bail with M100 000 surety each by Chief Magistrate ’Matankiso Nthunya.
Despite the controversy, Nazimada maintains that the debt it claims is legitimate.
“The applicant supplied and delivered fabric and other material to the value set out,” Ms Baraiya states in her affidavit.
“Presitex has been our trading partner for the longest possible time and, for all the years that we have been dealing with them, they have not defaulted.”
Presitex is yet to file its opposing papers.
