Black Coffee Foundation raises more than R500k for Mthatha flood victims
The floods in Mthatha left many residents without shelter, food and basic resources. Recognising the scale of the crisis, the foundation mobilised a coalition of partners and community supporters to provide essential relief to affected families.
The organisation partnered with Feed the Nation, the Hollywoodbets Foundation, Nando's, Sompire, BidAir Cargo and NGL Logistics Group, to raise more than R500,000 to deliver supplies including food parcels, warm clothing, hygiene packs and other essentials.
'This is more than a relief effort; it's a call to action for all of us to step up and support our communities in times of crisis,' said CEO of the Black Coffee Foundation, Black Coffee's sister Lungie Maphumulo.
'The Eastern Cape holds a deep significance not only for the foundation, but for the many people who call it home. We are grateful to our partners and to every person who donated towards the cause. Giving back isn't only something we do, it's who we are.'
Lungie urged more organisations to provide urgent relief and long-term support for those in need.
'We believe real impact comes through sustained action. The initiative is not a one-off campaign. It is part of our wider mission to continue showing up where it matters most. We understand the long road ahead for many families in Mthatha, and we intend to walk the road with them.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
5 hours ago
- The Star
Investec Witness Admits Contradictions in Rushil Singh Fraud Trial
During the ongoing fraud trial of Rushil Singh, a key Investec employee testifying for the State admitted under cross-examination that Singh was not directly involved in the alleged fraud. This acknowledgment challenges a central aspect of the prosecution's case, which is based on Singh's position as CEO of BIG and assumptions about his knowledge of the loan witness initially testified that the financial guarantee involved in the case was 'cash backed.' However, under questioning by the defense, he conceded that this was incorrect. 'The guarantee was not, in fact, cash backed,' the witness said. He further explained that no contractual agreement explicitly required the guarantee to be backed by cash. 'There was an assumption that the guarantee was cash backed, but there is no documentary proof to support this,' he added. This admission weakens the prosecution's argument that Singh knowingly engaged in fraudulent activity related to the guarantee. The witness also contradicted himself multiple times during cross-examination. When reminded that he was under oath, he responded, 'No man is infallible.' The defence highlighted these inconsistencies to question his credibility. Compounding these issues, the court heard that the original R20 million guarantee issued by Stanbic Bank was initially cash backed and included a conditional clause confirming this security. However, it was Investec that requested the removal of this clause, transforming the guarantee from a secured instrument to an unsecured one. 'The original Stanbic guarantee was secured, but Investec itself asked for the security to be removed,' the defence argued, raising concerns about Investec's internal oversight and defense further emphasized that Singh's involvement is based on presumption rather than evidence. 'The State's own witness conceded Rushil Singh was not directly involved,' the defence said. 'Singh's implication rests solely on the assumption that he must have known about a cash backing requirement, a notion without contractual or factual basis.'Adding to the scrutiny of Investec's role are allegations that several Investec employees received personal benefits from Nishani Singh, related to the loans. The Star has learnt of a new man on the story, referred to as Mr X reportedly received monthly payments of R19,000 through a shell company registered in his name from December 2020 to October 2021 — the period during which the loan agreements were being structured and finalized. Mr X. also received a lump sum payment of R70,000 in August 2020 and may have received a R2 million contribution towards his Pretoria home's construction. After resigning from Investec in June 2021, he joined BIG as a director with a reported monthly salary of R300, other bank employees were linked to questionable benefits. Mr X.2 received two Sandton City gift vouchers worth R10,000 each, given during active loan negotiations. Mr X.2 was given a fully paid Sun City trip in December 2016. The defence suggests these benefits breached banking ethics and could constitute inducements.
IOL News
6 hours ago
- IOL News
Investec Witness Admits Contradictions in Rushil Singh Fraud Trial
During the ongoing fraud trial of Rushil Singh, a key Investec employee testifying for the State admitted under cross-examination that Singh was not directly involved in the alleged fraud. This acknowledgment challenges a central aspect of the prosecution's case, which is based on Singh's position as CEO of BIG and assumptions about his knowledge of the loan witness initially testified that the financial guarantee involved in the case was 'cash backed.' However, under questioning by the defense, he conceded that this was incorrect. 'The guarantee was not, in fact, cash backed,' the witness said. He further explained that no contractual agreement explicitly required the guarantee to be backed by cash. 'There was an assumption that the guarantee was cash backed, but there is no documentary proof to support this,' he added. This admission weakens the prosecution's argument that Singh knowingly engaged in fraudulent activity related to the guarantee. The witness also contradicted himself multiple times during cross-examination. When reminded that he was under oath, he responded, 'No man is infallible.' The defence highlighted these inconsistencies to question his credibility. Compounding these issues, the court heard that the original R20 million guarantee issued by Stanbic Bank was initially cash backed and included a conditional clause confirming this security. However, it was Investec that requested the removal of this clause, transforming the guarantee from a secured instrument to an unsecured one. 'The original Stanbic guarantee was secured, but Investec itself asked for the security to be removed,' the defence argued, raising concerns about Investec's internal oversight and defense further emphasized that Singh's involvement is based on presumption rather than evidence. 'The State's own witness conceded Rushil Singh was not directly involved,' the defence said. 'Singh's implication rests solely on the assumption that he must have known about a cash backing requirement, a notion without contractual or factual basis.'Adding to the scrutiny of Investec's role are allegations that several Investec employees received personal benefits from Nishani Singh, related to the loans. The Star has learnt of a new man on the story, referred to as Mr X reportedly received monthly payments of R19,000 through a shell company registered in his name from December 2020 to October 2021 — the period during which the loan agreements were being structured and finalized. Mr X. also received a lump sum payment of R70,000 in August 2020 and may have received a R2 million contribution towards his Pretoria home's construction. After resigning from Investec in June 2021, he joined BIG as a director with a reported monthly salary of R300, other bank employees were linked to questionable benefits. Mr X.2 received two Sandton City gift vouchers worth R10,000 each, given during active loan negotiations. Mr X.2 was given a fully paid Sun City trip in December 2016. The defence suggests these benefits breached banking ethics and could constitute inducements.
TimesLIVE
10 hours ago
- TimesLIVE
Pensioner prevails in eight-year rates court battle against City of Joburg
Lampe was initially granted permission to open her business by the then Randburg town council in 1984 after inspections were conducted on her property. According to court papers, she continued to pay the annual fee with no challenges until the payments were phased out indefinitely in the early 1990s. In December 2017 the city, under a new administration, sent her an 'unauthorised use of the property' letter, and instructed her to shut down within a month or face a criminal and civil case. Lampe's explanation that she had a permit from the 1980s fell on deaf ears. Instead, penalties were issued on her account. Delivering his judgment, judge Stuart Wilson blasted the city for being unfair to Lampe. 'Had the city engaged reasonably and sensibly with Ms Lampe from the outset, this application would never have been necessary,' he ruled. 'It is declared that the respondent's conduct in levying property rates on the applicant's property based on the tariff applicable to properties put to an illegal use is unlawful. The respondent is directed to reverse all charges against the applicant's municipal account.' Wilson further interdicted the municipality from terminating any services to Lampe's property and directed the city to furnish her with a recalculated bill within 30 days of the order. The city was also ordered to pay the costs of the application. Though happy with the order, Lampe — who claims to have lost more than R350,000 in legal fees — said she was sceptical the city will honour it. 'It's a positive outcome but my lawyer told me that the city has a history of ignoring court orders and it might be another year before they refund me,' she said. 'I just want to put this behind me. It is sad that the city could target someone who was trying to make an honest living ... [and] who is not a burden to the state for social grants.'
