…as he vows to take the company back to its glory days
…while suspended CEO, secretary challenge removals in court
Mohloai Mpesi
THE battle for control of Naledi Funeral Planners has intensified after the company’s majority shareholders secured access to company bank accounts and moved to consolidate operational authority, while suspended executives have rushed to court seeking to overturn the developments.
The shareholder bloc, which reportedly controls more than 70 percent of the company and now constitutes the Board of Directors, has effectively assumed day-to-day control of the funeral services giant.
The four shareholders are; Thabiso Madiba with (45.152%), Sidwel Jackson (12.523%), Khojane Madiba (1.248%) and Mohau Linake 13.876%.
The board has since appointed another shareholder, Tšolo Seutloali, as interim Managing Director.
The latest developments follow last week’s dramatic suspension of Chief Executive Officer, Mosuoe Mabote, and Company Secretary and Head of Legal and Corporate Affairs, Advocate Peter Matekane.
However, the suspended executives have petitioned the High Court to nullify the suspensions, arguing that Naledi founder and board chairperson, Thabiso Madiba, acted unlawfully and without proper authority.
The application filed this past week marks another chapter in an increasingly bitter corporate war that has already spilled into the courts, triggered security confrontations and raised uncertainty over the future control of the company.
Naledi Funeral Planners, Mr Mabote and Adv Matekane are first to third applicants respectively, while Thabiso and Black Diamond Security Services are cited as respondents.
It is not clear why Mr Mabote and Adv Matekane opted to cite Naledi as a co-applicant when they are no longer in control of the business.
In their application, they seek urgent intervention from the court to halt what they describe as Thabiso’s continued interference in the company’s affairs.
They seek, among others, an order enrolling both CCA/0032/2026 and CCA/0010/2026 for hearing during vacation, alternatively that CCA/0010/2026 be heard on an expedited basis.
The application further seeks: “An order interdicting Thabiso Madiba, either personally or through his agent, from interfering with first applicant’s (Thabiso) affairs without due process of the law.
“Expedited hearing of the interlocutory interdict application under CCA/0032/2026 and the declaratory application in main case under CCA/0010/2026.
“An interdict against the first respondent to wrestle administration and control of first applicant.”
The CCA/0010/2026 is the main case in which Mr Tlelima is challenging the legitimacy of decision taken by major shareholders during the disputed 16 January 2026 shareholders meeting which resulted in Thabiso’s appointment as Board’s chairperson.
In CCA/0032/2026, the Matekane camp was challenging the meeting convened by Thabiso and others which resolved to suspend them. The also resolved that the Board takes over company operations including bank accounts, hence the ultimate appointment of Mr Seutloali.
In the latest dispute, Mr Mabote and Adv Matekane argue the 29 May 2026 meeting was irregular and should never have proceeded while another matter remained unresolved before the courts.
“First respondent (Thabiso) staged a shareholders’ meeting to appoint directors of first applicant (Naledi). That meeting was not only un-procedural but turned chaotic hence the institution of CCA/0010/2026, which is currently pending awaiting set down.
“Instead of waiting for the resolution of CCA/0010/2026, first respondent held himself as the chairman of the Board of first applicant, by virtually interfering and imposing himself as ‘the owner’ of first applicant, hence the institution of CCA/0032/2026, which is still pending subject the court’s own directive that parties agree to concentrate on finalizing CCA/0010/2026, in order to decide the legitimacy of the aforementioned meeting.”
The applicants further accuse Thabiso of escalating tensions by allegedly forcefully asserting control over company operations despite ongoing litigation.
“Once again and without observing the sub judice rule, first respondent stormed first applicant’s premises and installed second respondent forcefully with apparent support of the Third respondent, hence this current application.
“This happened at the backdrop of the first respondent’s purported assumption of his role as the Chairman of Board of Directors by issuing show cause letters to second and third applicant and later suspending them despite their objection of his authority and dual roles with clear marks of conflict of interest as he is an employee of the rival company known as Nalane ea Basotho.”
Security fallout
The dispute has also exposed deep divisions over security arrangements at Naledi’s Temong offices.
This followed the termination of Hawk Eyed Security’s contract after the board accused the company of failing to enforce directives restricting Mr Mabote and Adv Matekane from accessing the premises.
According to correspondence seen by this publication, the board accused Hawk Eyed Security personnel of undermining internal security measures.
“The Board further notes that personnel subsequently deployed by Hawk Eyed Security during the incident also failed to support the implementation of the Company’s security directives and, instead of assisting in restoring order, acted in a manner that contributed to a breakdown of the security arrangements at the premises.
“As a consequence of the events, peace and order at the Company’s premises were disturbed to the extent that intervention by the Lesotho Mounted Police Service became necessary…”
The situation reportedly escalated after Adv Matekane entered the premises and was later followed by members of the Lesotho Defence Force carrying AK47 rifles.
Latest application
In a founding affidavit filed in support of Mr Mabote and Adv Matekane’s application, former board chairperson, Malefetsane Tlelima, says he remains the legitimate chairman and has authority to represent both the company and the suspended executives.
“I am one of the directors of first applicant herein and chairman of its board and am in that capacity, duly authorised to depose to this affidavit and represent it as appears in all litigation where it is involving first applicant.
“I have also been authorised by the second and third applicants to represent them herein.”
Mr Tlelima argues the suspensions were unlawful and undertaken without authority.
“Although this has been a long unending legal tussle between first applicant and second respondent, on or about 29 May 2026, first respondent holding out as chairman of the board of directors of first applicant, albeit illegally, issued two letters of show cause in relation to the suspensions of second and third applicants.
“However, and on the 4th of June 2026, first respondent once again holding himself out as the chairman of the board of directors of first applicant issued suspension letters to both second and third applicants, albeit illegally…”
Mr Tlelima further alleges that the deployment of Black Diamond Security Services created an explosive situation at Naledi’s headquarters.
“Whilst still mulling over a response thereto, second applicant (Black Diamond) swarmed first applicant’s premises situated at Temong, adjacent Durham Link, announcing itself as a newly contracted security company which resulted in a near bloody and fatal stand-off between first applicant’s current security company known as Hawked Eye, the police and a contingent of army personnel.
“As now the stand-off still exists, in what can be described as a cold war as I am under army protection whereas second respondent is virtually armed every time they clock in for work.
“This ugly stand-off even reached the general public via newspaper report and social media platforms resulting in negative reviews about first applicant’s business which is prejudicial…”
Mr Tlelima says the actions complained of undermine previous court directions.
“This is a sequel to CCA/0032/2026 and CCA/0010/2026 cases of this Honourable Court.
“In CCA/0032/2026, the court directed that parties revive CCA/0010/2026 and argue it to finality with parties having to have filed heads of argument by the 29th of May 2026.”
He further accuses Thabiso of attempting to seize control of the company outside legal channels.
“Whilst awaiting legal processes to unfold in terms of the court’s directions which for all intends and purposes rendered this matter sub judice, first respondent proceeded to appoint the so-called board despite the undertaking made in both cases and further thereto attempted to forcefully wrestle control of first Applicant…
“From the above it is clear that first respondent is intent on hijacking first applicant whatever means and has no respect to legal process.
“It is respectfully submitted that first respondent’s actions do not only defy sub judice rule but also borders on contempt of the court’s processes and amount to self-help…”
Mr Tlelima says an expedited hearing is necessary to restore certainty around Naledi’s operations and prevent further reputational damage.
“Since both applications touch on the propriety of First Respondent’s action, it is only logical that same be heard on an expedited basis to avoid uncertainty regarding first Applicant’s operations…”
He also alleges that Mr Madiba’s involvement presents a conflict of interest.
“As an employee of Nalane ea Basotho and its shadow director, active promoter and shadow principal, First Respondent has no business meddling in the affairs of First Applicant…
“This is exacerbated by the fact that, he unceremoniously resigned as a director… back in the heels of a disciplinary hearing in which he was accused of defrauding First Applicant.”
Thabiso and Black Diamond are yet to file opposing pape