Stephen Gleisner, the founder and previous owner of The Courier Guy, has rejected claims of trying to execute a hostile takeover of Eagle Canyon Golf Estate.
In a statement via his attorneys, Van Deventer Dowlath & Marx (VDM), he addressed recent media reports that mentioned accusations of “estate capture.”
Johlene Wasserman, who serves as director of community schemes at VDM, clarified that a property owner using their lawful membership rights does not equate to an attempt to “capture an estate.”
“Demanding good governance is not estate capture. It is precisely what responsible property owners are entitled to do,” Wasserman stated on behalf of Gleisner.
Having established The Courier Guy in 2000 from modest beginnings, Gleisner has seen his venture grow into one of South Africa’s leading e-commerce delivery companies.
He later sold the business to Adenia for an undisclosed sum. Given that the company’s turnover stood at R1.85 billion in 2023, it is likely that he made a significant profit.
Since exiting The Courier Guy, Gleisner has engaged in various business ventures, including investments in real estate located in Eagle Canyon, while largely keeping a low profile.
Wasserman noted that the current dispute began after the Eagle Canyon Association’s annual general meeting (AGM) held on October 7, 2026.
During this meeting, attendees voiced concerns regarding the estate’s board composition, voting methods, financial transparency, and certain decisions affecting the association.
“The association confirmed that it will convene a new extraordinary general meeting to elect directors rather than continue the disputed AGM,” Wasserman remarked.
“Implementation of certain contested resolutions will also be deferred pending the election of a new board and further legal consideration.”
According to Wasserman, these developments indicate that Gleisner’s governance concerns require thorough consideration.
“While we welcome constructive engagement with the association and legal representatives, important questions concerning transparency, governance records, and decision-making remain outstanding,” she added.
Wasserman stated that Gleisner and his family control a voting interest of less than 5% within the Eagle Canyon Association, according to around 1,500 votes.
“Gleisner has explicitly confirmed he does not plan to run for a position on the board, acknowledging the potential conflicts arising from his substantial property interests,” she added.
Rather than making attempts to dominate the estate with his limited voting power, Wasserman claimed that Gleisner aims to hold the residential estate responsible and ensure transparency.
She also noted that historical commercial development proposals related to the estate should not be mixed up with the current governance dispute.
This clarification comes after suggestions that Gleisner sought to establish a board at Eagle Canyon that would back a previously withdrawn proposal for his company to redevelop parts of the estate’s amenities.
“Property ownership does not place anyone above the law, but neither should significant investment in an estate strip an owner of the right to demand lawful governance,” Wasserman insisted.
“The same principles of transparency, accountability, and fair treatment must apply to every member, regardless of the number of properties they own.”
She cautioned against letting unverified claims and social media rumors detract from what she maintains are genuine legal matters.
According to Wasserman, Gleisner and his family have followed proper legal and governance procedures in their pursuit of transparency from the Eagle Canyon board.
“They have not made baseless accusations of misconduct against any individual, nor should this issue devolve into a matter of personal conflicts or financial might,” she stated.
“This is about ensuring effective governance for an estate that holds significant investment for hundreds of families.” She emphasized that the push for accountability should not be viewed as a bid for control.
Don’t miss the latest news
