…as consultancy firm accuses gambling giant of breaching agreement
Moorosi Tsiane
A Maseru-based casino, Goldrush Lesotho (PTY) Ltd, has been dragged to court by a consultancy firm over an alleged unpaid M1.5 million debt linked to a casino licensing deal.
Tsoelopele Investments (PTY) Ltd accuses Goldrush of reneging on a M3 million agreement under which the consultancy firm allegedly helped the gambling company secure a 10-year casino authorisation, licence renewal and legislative amendments.
According to court papers filed in the High Court last week by Tsoelopele secretary and managing director, Malebo Adelaide Vena, the two companies entered into an agreement in August 2024 in which Tsoelopele was hired to facilitate the casino licence renewal process and related legislative changes for a fee of M3 million.
However, Mr Vena claims Goldrush only paid half of the agreed amount, leaving an outstanding balance of M1.5 million despite the assignment allegedly being completed successfully.
“On or about 20 August 2024, we entered into an agreement with the respondent herein in which the applicant was contracted as a consultant to secure a 10-year casino authorisation and licence renewal as well as legislation amendments for a set fee of M3 000 000,” reads part of the court papers.
“The defendant herein only paid half of the said amount on 21 August 2025, with a balance of M1 500 000 to be paid upon completion of the assignment.”
Mr Vena further states that the work had already been completed and that Goldrush had failed to honour its contractual obligations despite repeated demands for payment.
“The assignment has since been completed and the outstanding balance has not been paid as agreed, despite numerous demands by the applicant in that regard.
“It was a material term of the agreement that immediately when the assignment had been completed and submission of the casino licence had been granted, the debt would be paid in full.”
Tsoelopele argues that Goldrush’s failure to settle the remaining balance amounts to a breach of contract.
“The defendant would be in breach should it fail to observe and/or perform any of the terms, conditions and obligations of this agreement, in particular the punctual payment of the amount due.
“The defendant has failed to pay as agreed, thereby breaching the agreement in that they only paid half of the agreed amount, and no payment has been received in respect of the second instalment,” Mr Vena adds in his affidavit.
Goldrush is yet to file opposing papers in the matter.
