Ayo Technology Solutions Limited v Companies and Intellectual Property Commission and Others (15285/2019) [2019] ZAGPPHC 102 (26 March 2019)
The court found that the application was rendered moot because the compliance notice at issue had already been set aside in a related judgment under case number 15315/2019. As a result, there was no longer a live controversy requiring adjudication, and the court declined to make any findings on the merits of the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] ZAGPPHC 102
- Parties
- Applicant: AYO Technology Solutions Limited; Respondent: Companies and Intellectual Property Commission; Respondent: Minister of Trade and Industry; Respondent: The Public Investment Corporation Limited
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 15285/2019
- Procedural Posture
- Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Relief; Removal From the Roll Due to Mootness
- Outcome
- Application removed from the roll due to mootness; no findings made on the merits.
- Judges
- Van der Westhuizen
- Legal Topics
- Compliance Notice, Mootness, Companies Act, Urgent Application
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
AYO Technology Solutions Limited
Applicant
Companies and Intellectual Property Commission
Respondent
Minister of Trade and Industry
Respondent
The Public Investment Corporation Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Relief; Removal From the Roll Due to Mootness
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the compliance notice issued by the first respondent should be set aside.
- 2 Whether the application is rendered moot by the outcome of a related matter.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application was rendered moot because the compliance notice at issue had already been set aside in a related judgment under case number 15315/2019. As a result, there was no longer a live controversy requiring adjudication, and the court declined to make any findings on the merits of the application.
Court Disposition
Application removed from the roll due to mootness; no findings made on the merits.
Orders
- The application is removed from the roll.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO.: 15285/2019
26/3/2019
In the matter between:
AYO TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS LIMITED Applicant
and
COMPANIES AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY COMMISSION First Respondent
MINISTER OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY
Second Respondent
THE PUBLIC INVESTMENT CORPORATION LIMITED
Third Respondent
JUDGMENT
VAN DER WESTHUIZEN, J
[1] This matter came before me by way of urgency. It concerns the issue by the first respondent of a Compliance Notice in terms of the provisions of section 171 of the Companies Act, 71 of 2008 (the Act), to the third respondent on 21 February 2019.
[2] The matter was enrolled together with an urgent application, under Case No. 15315/2019,
brought by the third respondent against the first respondent. Counsel for the first and third respondents also appeared in the other matter. Both applications were independently launched, the one not knowing of the other. This application was launched prior to the one under Case No. 15315/2019. It is submitted by counsel for the present applicant that if the judgment in the matter brought by the third respondent against the first respondent was in favour of the third respondent, this application would be moot. The same compliance notice is under attack in both matters, albeit on different grounds. The relief sought in both applications are similar in effect, if not identical.
[3] I have granted judgment in favour of the third respondent as applicant in matter no. 15315/2019. In terms of that judgment, the said notice of compliance was declared of no force and effect and accordingly set aside.
[4] It follows that this application is rendered moot and I make no findings on the merits or on this application.
I grant the following order:
(a) The application is removed from the roll.
C J VAN DER WESTHUIZEN
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
On behalf of Applicant: N Cassim SC
K Pillay
Instructed by:
C Abrahams Attorneys
On behalf of First and Second Respondent: A F Arnoldi SC
S Mentz
Instructed by:
State Attorney