November 14, 2003

By Edward West

Cape Town - The high court has set aside, with a punitive order for costs, the Anton Pillar order obtained by Nic Frangos, the former Corpcapital non-executive director, which he used to allow the premises of Corpcapital and the homes of its directors to be searched.

The effect of yesterday's order was that the searches were unlawful.

The Anton Pillar order was obtained by Frangos because he believed Corpcapital directors had allegedly hired Associated Intelligence Network

(AIN) to illegally investigate him and so, allegedly, also invade his privacy.

However, Judge Deon Basson found in his judgment that Frangos had no basis for believing that documents would be hidden, destroyed or disposed of, which was one of the reasons why he had applied for the Anton Pillar order, and that Frangos's allegations to this effect were "flimsy and speculative".

The judge found Frangos's case was based on untested and hearsay evidence, which should not have been admitted.

The court found the link between Corpcapital executive director Jeff Liebesman and any instruction to AIN to investigate Frangos was "virtually non-existent", and there was no reason to make Liebesman party to the Anton Pillar application and to subject his home to a search.

"This was a serious abuse of process," the judge said.

Frangos's so-called irrefutable evidence was not placed before the judge who heard the application.

"The question arises: why was not a word mentioned in the founding papers of evidence that might have influenced the judge," Basson said.

The judge found that abuses had been perpetrated in the execution of the order. He found there were no facts supporting the claim that Corpcapital director Neil Lazarus would destroy documentary evidence or that he would "stoop so low to order Frangos to be investigated".

In a separate statement following the judgment, Frangos said the invasion of privacy case that motivated the Anton Pillar application was proceeding and a trial date was awaited. It was advisable that he reserved comment until the conclusion of the privacy case and until the conclusion of the investigation in terms of section 58 of the Companies Act into Corpcapital's affairs.

Lazarus commented that, in light of the judgment, he would be adding to the

R9 million defamation and damages claim he was making against Frangos, while Corpcapital would also be adding to its claims against Frangos.