Black Coffee turns up heat on Maserati as sheriff ordered to seize assets over R7.7m debt

The legal battle between Nkosinathi Innocent Maphumulo, better known as Grammy-winning musician Black Coffee, and Maserati SA has escalated, with a sheriff now instructed to attach and sell the luxury carmaker’s movable assets to recover more than R7.7m owed to his company.

The development is the latest chapter in a dispute that began over a luxury vehicle deal and has now moved into the enforcement stage, with Maserati facing the prospect of having its movable property sold by public auction to satisfy a high court judgment.

A writ of execution issued on August 17 directs the sheriff to attach and take into execution the movable goods of Casa Vehicle Holdings, which trades as Maserati SA, and have them realised by public auction to recover R7.735m.

The amount comprises the R7m judgment debt awarded to Black Coffee’s company, Soulistic Music, by the Johannesburg high court as well as R735,000 in interest calculated at 10.5% a year from August 22 2025.

The writ sets out the amount being pursued and the basis on which the sheriff is being instructed to execute against Maserati SA.

The latest development means the judgment is no longer simply a court order requiring Maserati to pay. The sheriff has now been authorised to take steps against the company’s movable property if necessary to recover the outstanding amount.

The document is explicit about what the sheriff has been instructed to do — “attach and take into execution the movable goods of the defendant.” Those goods are to be sold to recover the money owed to Soulistic Music.

Importantly, the writ does not state that Maserati’s assets have already been seized or sold. Instead, it authorises the sheriff to begin the execution process against the company’s movable property.

The execution process stems from a dispute involving Maphumulo’s company and Maserati over the purchase of two vehicles.

Maphumulo had previously told the court that the vehicles were bought in November 2024 for a combined amount of about R16m.

Maserati, accordingly, breached the agreement in that it failed to timeously deliver vehicle two by the delivery date. As a result of the breach I am entitled to restitution in the amount of R7m, being the trade in amount which Maserati is obliged to repay.—   Nkosinathi Maphumulo, in court papers

While one vehicle was delivered, the second became the subject of the legal dispute after it was allegedly not delivered within the agreed timeframe.

The second vehicle was also meant to be extensively customised, with Maphumulo requesting changes to the exterior, interior and various trimmings, including the seat belts and brake calipers.

Maphumulo’s case was that Maserati had promised to deliver the vehicle in June 2025 but failed to do so.

He subsequently sought the return of R7m, which he described as the trade-in amount Maserati was obliged to repay following the alleged breach of the agreement.

“Maserati, accordingly, breached the agreement in that it failed to timeously deliver vehicle two by the delivery date,” Maphumulo stated in his court papers.

“As a result of the breach I am entitled to restitution in the amount of R7m, being the trade in amount which Maserati is obliged to repay.”

Before the matter reached court, Maphumulo had attempted to resolve the dispute with Maserati.

Correspondence included an assurance from a Maserati employee that a production slot had been secured for the vehicle and that the factory had made a special exception for the musician.

“We are pleased to announce that we have secured a production slot for your order since you are a globally recognised figure, the factory has made a special exception for us.”

But the vehicle was ultimately not delivered, according to Maphumulo’s case.

Maserati disputed his claims and denied that it had breached the agreement.

Maphumulo took issue with the carmaker’s position, arguing that Maserati had not raised a substantive defence to his claim.

The high court subsequently entered summary judgment against Maserati on August 3. Maserati was also ordered to pay the costs of the legal proceedings.

For Soulistic Music, the writ represents the next step in enforcing the judgment it secured against Maserati. The latest development places the spotlight firmly on Maserati SA and what happens next.

If the judgment debt remains outstanding, the execution process provides a mechanism for the sheriff to identify movable property belonging to the company that can be attached and sold to recover the money.

The document does not identify which specific assets may be targeted and does not record that any particular Maserati vehicles, equipment or other property have already been attached.

Those details would only become apparent if and when the sheriff executes the writ and reports back on the action taken.

The Maserati battle is one of several legal disputes involving Maphumulo.

He is also embroiled in a separate legal battle with social media commentator Nota Baloyi over allegations made about him, with Maphumulo pursuing contempt proceedings against Baloyi.