plaintiff’s version on this issue. Whilst his credibility would not be at issue at this stage, what is relevant are the contradictions in his own evidence on this issue (of not knowing the proposed breakdown when he took the draft to the first defendant which he emphatically subsequently contradicted) and the inherent improbability of his version of not providing an instruction as to what should be stated in the shareholding clause in the context of being unhappy that the first defendant was his feet’ and not being a registered shareholder of the ‘dragging third defendant as well as his repeated acknowledgment that shareholding was discussed with Mr Angula. At one point he said he to him (Mr Angula) ‘relayed concerning our company shareholding in Pegmatite (the third defendant).’ The plaintiff said that Mr Angula had asked how many are in the company’ in the ‘we context of the express instruction given to him prepare an agreement pertaining to shareholding.’ Yet the plaintiff persisted with his denial that he ever provided an instruction as to what the ratio should be. This denial is plainly self serving as the plaintiff would realise that an admission that he had provided such an instruction would be destructive of his version of the disputed oral agreement. Significant in this regard is the failure to call Mr Angula when he was available to be called as a witness. I also take into account that, if there was a 50:50 agreement, this would have been conveyed to Mr Angula in preparing the draft given its importance in the context of the task at hand. I find that the plaintiff’s version as to the draft agreement prepared on his behalf is so fundamentally improbable and inherently unacceptable that it negate any basis for a reasonable inference that the plaintiff and first defendant had agreed upon a 50:50 shareholding in 2005 as alleged by the plaintiff. apart from this, it is in any event clear that upon the evidence of plaintiff’s own version, he had provided the draft to the first defendant as his proposal one prepared on his behalf by an attorney engaged by him to do so. – It was thus his proposal. He also stated that he knew its terms even though he – subsequently repeatedly denied this. This evidence is in any event destructive of the plaintiff’s case that he had an oral agreement concluded two years before in terms of whereof a 50:50 shareholding ratio had been agreed upon. What is clear to me at the conclusion of the plaintiff’s testimony and his
plaintiff’s version on this issue. Whilst his credibility would not be at issue at this stage, what is relevant are the contradictions in his own evidence on this issue (of not knowing the proposed breakdown when he took the draft to the first defendant which he emphatically subsequently contradicted) and the inherent improbability of his version of not providing an instruction as to what should be stated in the shareholding clause in the context of being unhappy that the first defendant was ‘dragging his feet’ and not being a registered shareholder of the third defendant as well as his repeated acknowledgment that shareholding was discussed with Mr Angula. At one point he said he ‘relayed to him (Mr Angula) concerning our company shareholding in Pegmatite (the third defendant).’ The plaintiff said that Mr Angula had asked how many ‘we are in the company’ in the context of the express instruction given to him prepare an agreement pertaining to shareholding.’ Yet the plaintiff persisted with his denial that he ever provided an instruction as to what the ratio should be. This denial is plainly self serving as the plaintiff would realise that an admission that he had provided such an instruction would be destructive of his version of the disputed oral agreement. Significant in this regard is the failure to call Mr Angula when he was available to be called as a witness. I also take into account that, if there was a 50:50 agreement, this would have been conveyed to Mr Angula in preparing the draft given its importance in the context of the task at hand. I find that the plaintiff’s version as to the draft agreement prepared on his behalf is so fundamentally improbable and inherently unacceptable that it negate any basis for a reasonable inference that the plaintiff and first defendant had agreed upon a 50:50 shareholding in 2005 as alleged by the plaintiff. apart from this, it is in any event clear that upon the evidence of plaintiff’s own version, he had provided the draft to the first defendant as his proposal – one prepared on his behalf by an attorney engaged by him to do so. It was thus his proposal. He also stated that he knew its terms – even though he subsequently repeatedly denied this. This evidence is in any event destructive of the plaintiff’s case that he had an oral agreement concluded two years before in terms of whereof a 50:50 shareholding ratio had been agreed upon. What is clear to me at the conclusion of the plaintiff’s testimony and his