The High Court has interdicted eBet (Pty) Limited Director Willem Joseph Delport from withdrawing, transferring or disposing of funds from the company’s First National Bank (FNB) Eswatini account without the written consent of fellow director and shareholder Ioannis Kiriakos Calivitis.
The interim order was granted by Judge Bongani Dlamini in terms of prayers one to five of Calivitis’ urgent application. Calivitis approached the High Court after alleging that E6 million had been transferred from eBet account in two transactions, which he neither authorised nor approved.
The first transaction described as bitville fees, involved E2 million on August 26 while the second involving E4 million was made on September 3. Calivitis, who is eBet managing director and holds 50% of its shares, told the court that he was not consulted before the transactions were made and that no board resolution authorising them had been passed.
He further alleged that he had been unable to access the company’s FNB online banking enterprise profile since about May while Delport continued to have online banking access. According to Calivitis, he asked Delport on May 15 to sign an administrator reactivation form, which would have restored his access to the account.
Delport allegedly refused, responding: “I’m not signing this. Nothing will change.” Calivitis said this meant Delport had been able to make payments from the company’s account without his knowledge. The court papers state that eBet account, which is the company’s principal operating account, had an available balance of E960 549.81 as at September 15. The account reportedly handles substantial sums, including daily card terminal receipts and mobile money liquidations. Among the transactions cited were credits of E3 million, E3.5 million and E2.5 million on September 1, 8 and 15 respectively.
Calivitis said he became concerned about the E6 million after asking Delport on September 2 what was to be split and when he would receive his share. According to the affidavit, Delport said the company was first paying its bills before splitting the balance. When asked which bills, he allegedly responded: “Bitville.” Calivitis said Delport sent him a screenshot showing euro payments to beneficiaries described as ‘Bitville IOM’ but did not provide invoices.
He subsequently contacted Bitville Finance Manager Ravishkar Puddoo seeking documentation relating to the payments. According to Calivitis, Puddoo supplied invoices and statements for July and August on September 18, but indicated that Bitville had no record linking certain payments of EUR5 514.16, EUR35 094.68 and EUR15 767 to the eBet group accounts.
Puddoo reportedly requested SWIFT remittance advice for those payments. Calivitis, therefore, told the court that he did not know who ultimately received the E6 million. He stated, “I do not presently know to whom the E6 000 000 was in fact paid and those facts lie within the knowledge of Delport,” he said. He further disputed that the money had been applied to eBet invoices.
The affidavit also reveals a dispute over the company’s Eswatini and Lesotho operations.
“On September 23, the bank stated in writing that both directors are jointly authorised to issue instructions to the bank and are required to act together in matters relating to the account,” he said. Calivitis said he sent Delport a summary of the Lesotho May and June cash-up which allegedly reflected a shortage. After Delport rejected his version and Calivitis suggested that an auditor be appointed, Delport allegedly replied: “I’m taking my split out of SZ for LS.” Calivitis interpreted ‘SZ’ as Eswatini and ‘LS’ as Lesotho, saying he understood the message to mean that Delport intended removing money from the Eswatini company for use in Lesotho.
He disputed that Delport was entitled to remove any funds without the company’s authorisation. The affidavit states that the Lesotho business is conducted through Fuluoa Lottery (Pty) Ltd, where Delport is recorded as a director and 55% shareholder. Calivitis is not recorded as a director or shareholder of that company. Calivitis also raised allegations concerning Betify Lesotho (Pty) Ltd, an online betting company incorporated in February 2026. Although Delport is not listed as a director or shareholder, Calivitis said he believed Delport was associated with the business and alleged that eBet funds may have been used to pay expenses of competing businesses. These allegations remain disputed and have not been determined by the court.
Calivitis said he and Delport had been business partners for about 10 years but that their relationship had deteriorated over the previous four months. He told the court that the company had a potential buyer and that the sale of its Eswatini business was expected to materialise towards the end of 2026. He argued that the funds in the bank account formed part of the company’s value and that further withdrawals could prejudice eBet and the proposed sale. Before approaching the court, Calivitis said he contacted FNB on September 18 and 21, seeking a temporary hold on outgoing transactions.
The bank allegedly responded on September 23 that, without a board resolution authorising Calivitis to act independently of his co-director, it might not be able to act on his instructions. Calivitis argued that such a resolution was impossible because eBet had only two directors and Delport was the person whose conduct he was challenging. He, therefore, asked the court to grant urgent relief, arguing that funds could be transferred electronically within minutes and that recovery would be uncertain, particularly if money was moved outside the country. The interim order directs FNB not to give effect to withdrawal, transfer, payment or debit instructions from Delport unless accompanied by Calivitis’ written consent or authorised by a court order. It also directs the bank to reactivate Calivitis access as administrator of eBet’s FNB online banking enterprise profile, allowing both directors equal access to the account. The order does not prevent ordinary business payments.
Calivitis undertook not to unreasonably withhold consent to salaries, statutory levies, taxes and rent, provided requests are supported by relevant documentation. The rule nisi is returnable on October 29, when the parties’ positions will be considered further.
