Alberts, Bekker, Vorster, Pillay & Asociates v Makgolego Troskie Incorporated (50109/2012) [2013] ZAGPPHC 445 (4 December 2013)

Alberts, Bekker, Vorster, Pillay & Asociates v Makgolego Troskie Incorporated (50109/2012) [2013] ZAGPPHC 445 (4 December 2013)

The court found that the applicant had repeatedly failed to comply with previous court orders and had resorted to spurious tactics to delay the proceedings and avoid payment of its debts. The application for leave to appeal was defective as it did not comply with Rule 49(1)(d), failing to specify the grounds of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] ZAGPPHC 445
Parties
Applicant: Alberts, Bekker, Vorster, Pillay & Associates; Respondent: Makgolego Troskie Incorporated
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 December 2013
Case Number
50109/2012
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Refusal of Postponement and Granting of Final Liquidation Order
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused; adverse costs order granted against applicant; conduct of attorneys referred to Law Society.
Judges
Naidoo AJ
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal Requirements, Liquidation Order, Postponement Discretion, Attorney and Client Costs
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Leave to Appeal Requirements Liquidation Order Postponement Discretion Attorney and Client Costs

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alberts, Bekker, Vorster, Pillay & Associates

Applicant

Makgolego Troskie Incorporated

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Refusal of Postponement and Granting of Final Liquidation Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for leave to appeal against the refusal of postponement and granting of a final liquidation order should be granted.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's conduct justified the refusal of postponement and the granting of a liquidation order.
  3. 3 Whether the application for leave to appeal complied with Rule 49(1)(d) of the Uniform Rules of Court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had repeatedly failed to comply with previous court orders and had resorted to spurious tactics to delay the proceedings and avoid payment of its debts. The application for leave to appeal was defective as it did not comply with Rule 49(1)(d), failing to specify the grounds of appeal. The applicant's conduct demonstrated a lack of bona fides and an inability to pay its debts, justifying the refusal of postponement and the granting of a final liquidation order. The interests of justice and creditors required strict enforcement of the previous orders. The court declined to make a costs order de bonis propriis against the correspondent attorney but directed...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused; adverse costs order granted against applicant; conduct of attorneys referred to Law Society.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is refused.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of this matter on an attorney and client scale.