According to TechCentral, the Supreme Court of Appeal will soon rule on a case that could overturn the 2019 sale of Dimension Data’s Bryanston office park. The dispute centres on former executives who, as detailed in a settlement confession by ex-CEO Jason Goodall, held undisclosed interests in the buyer, a black women-led empowerment fund.
The court’s decision matters most to the six former executives named in the forensic investigation, to the empowerment fund that purchased the property, and to shareholders who may face further legal costs or reputational damage. For other South African tech firms, the case highlights the importance of transparent ownership structures in M&A transactions.
Dimension Data, founded in 1983 and listed on the JSE in 1987, grew from a small group of school friends selling Cisco networking gear into a multinational IT services provider. After a series of acquisitions and a brief stint in the FTSE 100, the company was acquired by Japan’s NTT Ltd in 2010 and later folded into NTT Data in 2019, with the Dimension Data brand surviving only in Africa and the Middle East.
The Bryanston campus, once the physical embodiment of the company’s ambition, was sold in December 2019. The sale was promoted as a transformation milestone, but a 2022 investigation by TechCentral uncovered that several former executives had hidden stakes in the buyer. In November 2024, Judge Denise Fisher declared the transaction void, finding that the executives had “entered into” undisclosed arrangements that breached the terms of the sale.
Goodall’s confession, made during a settlement with NTT, admitted that his undisclosed interests were held through nominees in a structure designed to keep the names hidden. Four of the men he named, Jeremy Ord, Steven Nathan, Saki Missaikos and Grant Bodley, have denied the account, saying the wording was dictated by Goodall’s settlement and are awaiting the appellate court’s ruling.
While the legal outcome will not affect the ongoing operations of NTT Data in the region, it could influence future deals involving South African tech assets, especially where empowerment funds are involved. Companies may need to tighten due-diligence processes and ensure full disclosure of any related-party interests to avoid similar challenges.
For more coverage of how corporate governance issues impact South African technology firms, see our Tech & Telco section.
Goodall’s confession also highlighted that the undisclosed interests were concealed through nominees, a tactic he admitted was used to keep the names hidden, a detail that adds a layer of complexity to the case and shows the lengths to which the former executives went to obscure their involvement. The four men he identified, Jeremy Ord, Steven Nathan, Saki Missaikos and Grant Bodley, have each publicly rejected the account, insisting that the wording of the confession was dictated by Goodall’s settlement with NTT. Their denial, coupled with the pending Supreme Court of Appeal decision, keeps the dispute alive and places the focus squarely on the credibility of the settlement confession itself.
The sale of the Bryanston campus in December 2019 was initially celebrated as a transformation milestone, yet the forensic investigation disclosed in January 2022 revealed that former executives held hidden stakes in the black women-led empowerment fund buyer. This revelation triggered a legal challenge that culminated in Judge Denise Fisher’s November 2024 ruling voiding the transaction. The court’s finding that six executives “entered into” undisclosed arrangements directly contravened the sale terms sets a precedent for how South African courts may treat similar empowerment-fund deals where related-party interests are not fully disclosed.
When a court declares a property sale void, the legal effect is that the transaction is treated as never having occurred, meaning ownership reverts to the seller and any consideration paid must be returned. In this instance, NTT Data would regain title to the Bryanston office park, while the empowerment fund would be required to refund any amounts received. The process also involves the unwinding of any ancillary agreements tied to the sale, such as lease arrangements or service contracts, which must be renegotiated or terminated in accordance with the original terms.
The appellate procedure now underway will see the Supreme Court of Appeal examine the lower court’s reasoning, focusing on whether the evidence of undisclosed interests meets the legal threshold for voiding a sale. The court will consider the confession, the defendants’ denials, and the statutory requirements for transparency in empowerment transactions. A decision is expected within the next few months, after which the parties will be instructed on the steps required to either confirm the voiding or reinstate the sale under revised conditions.
Beyond the immediate parties, the outcome will influence how future empowerment-fund acquisitions are structured, particularly regarding the disclosure of related-party interests. Companies will likely tighten their due-diligence frameworks, ensuring that nominee arrangements are fully disclosed to avoid similar litigation. The case is also a reminder that even high-profile deals, such as the 2019 sale of a landmark campus, remain vulnerable to scrutiny when transparency is compromised.
