Luxury carmaker Maserati has Schumachered to court to block grammy award-winning music producer extraordinaire DJ Black Coffee from attaching its movable assets in a dramatic fresh court battle that will attract the attention of the international media.
Africa Daily can reveal that Casa Vehicle Holdings (Pty) Ltd, trading as Maserati SA, has launched an urgent application in the Joburg High Court to rescind the previous R7 million court judgment and block Black Coffee’s company Soulistic Music (Pty) Ltd from attaching its movable assets.
The urgent application is set to be heard on Tuesday, 8 September 2026.
In the court papers which were filed last week, Maserati is pleading title he court to grant it an order to temporarily stop Soulistic Music from executing the judgment and give it an opportunity to defend the original claim.
The legal battle stems from a deal involving a customised Maserati MC20 Cielo.
According to Maserati’s court papers, Soulistic Music’s representative, Nkosinathi Maphumulo, popularly known as Black Coffee, entered into an agreement with the company on or about 13 November 2024 for the trade-in of an existing vehicle and the purchase of a customised MC20 Cielo through Maserati’s Fuoriserie bespoke customisation programme.
The agreement, according to Maserati, involved Black Coffee trading in his existing vehicle for R7 million and paying a further R2 million after the delivery of the new saloon.
The dispute centres largely on the production and delivery of the customised vehicle.
Maserati says the specifications for the vehicle required confirmation and approval from its head office before production could begin. It claims the final choice of custom colours was only communicated by its former representative, Nagesh Naidoo, on 7 April 2025.
Naidoo had left the company at the end of January 2025, after which the transaction was handled by Maserati’s Dealer Principal Donovan Eley and Senior Sales Representative Joshua Mannde.
The relationship between the parties deteriorated in June 2025 when the internationally renowned recording superstar’s entity indicated that he wanted to cancel the agreement and sought the return of the R7 million trade-in value.
The dispute eventually landed before the Johannesburg High Court.
On 3 August 2026, the court granted summary judgment in favour of Soulistic Music against Maserati.
The judgment ordered Maserati to pay R7 million, with interest and legal costs.
Maserati is now asking the court to rescind that judgment, arguing that it has a bona fide defence to the original claim and should be allowed to properly ventilate its case.
One of its central arguments is that the parties had reached a settlement on 22 April 2026.
Maserati says the settlement provided for payments of R1,095,833.33 per month. It claims Soulistic Music later rejected a further proposal on 25 June 2026 and indicated that it intended to continue with the litigation.
The carmaker argues that Soulistic subsequently proceeded with the summary judgment application for the original R7 million amount, despite what Maserati says was a binding settlement.
Maserati says this created uncertainty over what amount was actually owed and the terms on which payment was due.
The company also blames the withdrawal of its previous attorneys, ENS, for its failure to oppose the summary judgment application.
According to the affidavit, ENS informed Maserati on 8 July 2026 that it was withdrawing from the matter because of outstanding legal fees.
This happened shortly before 24 July, the deadline for filing an affidavit opposing the summary judgment application ahead of the 3 August hearing.
Maserati says that, as a result of the withdrawal, it was left without legal representation at a critical stage.
No opposing affidavit was filed and the summary judgment application proceeded unopposed.
The company says it was also directly served with the notice of set down because it no longer had attorneys of record.
Maserati argues that, as a corporate entity without an in-house legal department and without legal advice at that stage, it was not in a position to appreciate the significance of the notice or prepare a substantive opposing affidavit within the available time.
The company says it instructed its current attorneys, Nkuna Martial Incorporated, on or about 31 July 2026 to represent it.
It argues that the time between obtaining new legal representation and the 3 August hearing was insufficient to properly review what it describes as a complex and long-running dispute and prepare its defence.
Maserati maintains that its failure to oppose the application was therefore neither wilful nor an indication that it had abandoned its defence.
It says it had actively defended the matter before ENS’s withdrawal and had continued engaging in settlement negotiations.
The urgency of the latest application was triggered, according to Maserati, by a 17 August 2026 letter from Soulistic Music’s attorneys, HBG Schindlers Attorneys.
The letter demanded payment of R7.735 million by 21 August and warned that execution proceedings would follow if the amount was not paid.
Maserati says the threat of execution means its movable and immovable assets could potentially be attached and sold, causing what it describes as irreparable harm.
It is therefore asking the court to suspend the operation and execution of the 3 August judgment pending the outcome of its rescission application.
As part of the interim relief, Maserati has offered to resume payments of R1,095,833.33 a month to Soulistic Music, in accordance with what it says were the terms of the April settlement.
The first payment is proposed for 30 September 2026, followed by monthly payments on the last business day of each month.
Maserati stresses that this offer is not an admission that the original R7 million judgment is correct and says it is made without abandoning its position that the settlement, rather than the larger disputed claim, reflects the parties’ agreement.
The company also argues that Soulistic Music would suffer no material prejudice if execution is halted because it would continue receiving the proposed monthly payments.
At the same time, Maserati says it could suffer substantial prejudice if its assets were attached and sold before it had an opportunity to defend the case, particularly if the judgment was later rescinded.
Maserati is relying on the common-law principles governing rescission, as well as Rule 42(1)(a) of the Uniform Rules of Court.
It argues that it has a reasonable explanation for its default and a bona fide defence with prospects of success.
Among the defences it intends to raise is that it did not breach the original agreement because the timing of production was affected by the finalisation of the bespoke specifications.
It further disputes that it was given proper notice to remedy any alleged breach before Soulistic Music purportedly cancelled the agreement on 3 June 2025.
Maserati also relies heavily on the alleged April 2026 settlement, arguing that if the agreement was binding, Soulistic Music was not entitled to pursue the original R7 million claim.
Alternatively, it argues that the negotiations and dispute over the settlement terms demonstrate the existence of genuine issues that should be determined at trial rather than through summary judgment.
The carmaker is therefore asking the court to rescind the 3 August order, grant it leave to defend Soulistic Music’s action and allow it to file the necessary opposing papers.
The case represents a new chapter in the high-profile dispute between Black Coffee’s company and Maserati, after what began as an attempt to upgrade to a customised luxury vehicle turned into a multimillion-rand legal fight.
