Istanbul-based Turkcell has noted MTN’s latest court bid that seeks leave to appeal the recent Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) ruling in the long-running bribery dispute.
According to a statement, MTN, Phuthuma Nhleko and Irene Charnley have approached the Constitutional Court (ConCourt) to appeal the SCA decision that allows for the case to be heard in South African courts.
The ConCourt will now decide whether to hear the appeal filed by MTN and the other defendants in the ongoing legal battle, notes the statement.
Cedric Soule, global counsel for Turkcell, says: “This is the latest attempt by MTN and the other defendants to delay trial. The SCA clearly decided that South African courts have jurisdiction in this matter and unequivocally rejected all the objections raised by MTN, Phuthuma Nhleko and Irene Charnley. We remain confident that when the full evidence is presented at trial, it will demonstrate that MTN engaged in corrupt practices to secure the Iranian licence initially awarded to Turkcell.”
Dating back to 2013, the case involves allegations of bribery and corruption against MTN, with Turkcell alleging MTN paid off Iranian and South African officials to overturn a public tender that it lost for a multibillion-dollar opportunity to run the Iranian GSM telecoms licence.
Turkcell and its wholly-owned subsidiary, East Asian Consortium, sought damages of $4.2 billion (R78 billion) from MTN amid allegations of impropriety in the 2005 award of the first private mobile telecommunications licence in Iran.
Turkcell is of the view the ConCourt should decline to hear the appeal filed by MTN and the other defendants, as the SCA’s majority judgement was well-reasoned and correctly applied the established legal principles regarding jurisdiction.
“After 12 years of procedural delays, Turkcell looks forward to the opportunity to present its evidence in court and seek appropriate redress for the more than $4.2 billion in damages suffered due to MTN's alleged misconduct,” adds Soule.
Over the years, MTN has said the Turkcell litigation was without merit.
Share