IS THE DIS-CHEM AT IT AGAIN?

By Sam Slater

Dis-chem is one of the largest chain of pharmacies in South Africa whose shareholders include amongst others, North American based asset managers Blackrock and the South Africa’s Public Investment Corporation (PIC) the latter is a company responsible for managing the pension funds for the vast majority of government workers in South Africa.

A customer, one Ashwin Bunsee later referred to as the Plaintiff in this article had his first adverse run-in with the Dis-chem Pharmacies when he purchased a set of mobility aids/cruches from one of their stores.

It was whilst using this device that which caused for him to slip and fall. This caused/causes him injury and considerable pain and suffering.

He immediately reported this to the Dis-chem store.

The store’s manager, a Mr. Milton Freedman shockingly informed him that he needed to return the device so that it could be QS tested by a laboratory. This request by the manager not only shocked him but alarm bells in this customers head were set off.

His reaction was based on the fact that one of the largest Pharmaceutical chains in the country may be selling untested (for safety standards) mobility aids.

1. was after numerous exchange of correspondences, this store’s manager went dark on him.

He pressed the matter further and he was contacted by Dis-chems Ms. Charmaine Batt. Ms Batt requested that he return the device so that it could be subjected to a QS test.

The device as agreed was uplifted by the Dis-chem for testing and he was promised that she would be forward a copy of the test results to him but instead a new set of crutches were sent to him against his wishes of which he immediately had returned.

A considerbal amount of time had elapsed and after numourus requests were made by him to see the results to no avail and Ms. Batt like Mr. Freedman also went dark on him.

He took legal action and only then had he been contacted by the Dis-chem and during complicated negotiations including the the request and viewing of x-rays taken of his injuries by the Dios-chem. .

It was after a while he given one test report by Dis-chem then after much negotiations he was given another report purporting the device’s ability to perform. The problems are that these purported reports was done inhouse by the Dis-chem itself and further these reports were in conflict with each other.

He pointed this out to the Dis-chem but they remained silent on this which left him no choice but to draw his own conclusions.

This was then followed by further negotiations by the Dis-chem but no settlement was reached between himself and the Dis-chem.

It was during these negotiations that the Dis-chem tried to weasel their way and distance themselves from the offending mobility device but he had anticipated such a situation arising so he made sure that he retained one of the foots of the aids should its standards become disputed in the event of a bait and switch with another product that did ensue.

In all of this he eventually escalated his claim and decided to sue the Dis-chem for damages in the amount of R370 000 app $27000 USD in a court of law where he represent himself as the Plaintiff.

It was within this frey that there are a large South African law firm that has stepped into the arena and has served various legal papers and notices claiming to represent the Dis-chem in this scuffle for justice by Mr Bunsee now the Plaintiff.

This law firm which trades as the Cox Yeats Company with offices in Sandton and Umhlanga Rocks South Africa, is not recognized by the Plaintiff for reasons set out below.

The Plaintiff informed the Dis-chem’s board about this and other steps being taken by this Law firm.The Dis-chem’s board remains silent. Here is the thing, this law firm claims to act for the Dis-chem but they failed to produce a mandate in the form of a company resolution authorizing them to act on the Dis-chems behalf amongst other things in terms of the Company’s Act.

After much bro ha ha this law firm, the Cox Yeats puts up a defective “power of attorney”(POA). It was when Plaintiff pointed out to them that this was not the correct instrument for the job, they, the Cox Yeats changed course midway and made a swop by putting up a defective company resolution falsely claiming that this defective resolution can also act retrospectively and this is aside the fact that the legal chain of due procedure had been made broken at the outset months ago of which there exists no legal means for ratification.

I must point out the obvious at this stage that it is trite in law that companies act by resolution and Dis-chem which is a company that is listed on the the Johannesburg Securities Exchange (JSE) (share code DCP) is bound by this law and in terms of the Companies Act.

A very learned magistrate has previously stood this matter down and given a directive on this matter.

It was a few weeks ago around the 21^st that Plaintiff had to reappear in court again concerning this matter.

On that morning Plaintiff found that his car tyres were slashed by whom or what he has no idea.

Plaintiff managed to get into court albeit an hour late only to discover that the Cox Yeats’ two senior attorneys, one Davis Vlcek and a Carla Bishop including their counsil, Advocate De Jaeger had made an appearance in this matter. The reader must bear in mind that the Plaintiff a Mr Ashwin Bunsee is a “lone litigant” representing himself in this court matter.

It becomes a hard act to swallow to think that the Cox Yeats who has over 50 partners sends two of their partners plus an advocate to go against a self litigant (Mr. Bunsee)

Now instead of standing the matter down based on the fact that they do not have a mandate to represent the Dis-chem they engage in an act of unprofessionalism.

They made a request this time to a different magistrate who erred and misdirected the court by awarding a dismissal of the Rule 60 and were also unlawfully awarded costs against the Plaintiff.

Plaintiff (Ashwin Bunsee) has lodged an appeal on this judgment.

The Dis-chem is not new to controversy. It was in 2020 that they were ordeded to pay R1.2 million for price gourging. Here are the links. https://www.news24.com/fin24/companies/health/dis-chem-fined-r12-million-after-losing-price-gouging-case-for-surgical-masks-20200707

https://www.comptrib.co.za/info-library/case-press-releases/tribunal-fines-dis-chem-r12-million-for-excessive-pricing-of-face-masks-during-covid-19-pandemic

https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/companies/retail-and-consumer/2020-05-10-dis-chem-argues-it-acted-within-the-law-in-hiking-mask-prices/

Here is the thing; one of the largest shareholders in the Dis-chem is the Public Investment Corporation (PIC) which manages the funds of a large swath of government workers including those as I understand it to be that work in the health care industry. Is the Dis-chem using their funding in its business venture ( the health workers pension fund) and also selling those in need of ( the self same health workers) untested mobility aids as it has done me? Stay tuned.