Bester N.O and Others v Maas N.O and Another (2025-071547) [2025] ZAGPPHC 726 (17 July 2025)

Bester N.O and Others v Maas N.O and Another (2025-071547) [2025] ZAGPPHC 726 (17 July 2025)

The court found that the applicants failed to provide objective evidence of ongoing dissipation of the Trust's assets and did not adequately explain the delay in launching the urgent application. The urgency was deemed self-created, as the applicants had knowledge of the Trust's identity since 2023 but only instituted urgent proceedings in 2025, despite already having pending action proceedings for the same relief. The applicants did not demonstrate that they would be unable to obtain substantial redress in due course. Consequently, the court declined to hear the matter as urgent and struck it from the roll without considering the merits.

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 726
Parties
Applicant: Lambertus Von Wielligh Bester N.O; Applicant: Johnny Basson N.O; Applicant: Octox (Pty) Ltd (in liquidation); Applicant: Christian Findlay Bester N.O; Applicant: Laila Essop N.O; Applicant: Imagina (Pty) Ltd (in liquidation); Respondent: George Michael Maas N.O (in his capacity as Trustee of BHF Trust); Respondent: George Michael Maas N.O
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 July 2025
Case Number
2025-071547
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Provisional Sequestration and Alternative Payment Order, Heard on Urgent Basis
Outcome
Application struck from the roll for lack of urgency; costs awarded against applicants on a punitive scale.
Judges
MNGQIBISA-THUSI
Legal Topics
Provisional Sequestration, Urgent Application, Impeachable Disposition, Insolvency Act Section 26, Locus Standi, Lis Pendens
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Provisional Sequestration Urgent Application Impeachable Disposition Insolvency Act Section 26 Locus Standi Lis Pendens

Case Brief

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lambertus Von Wielligh Bester N.O

Applicant

Johnny Basson N.O

Applicant

Octox (Pty) Ltd (in liquidation)

Applicant

Christian Findlay Bester N.O

Applicant

Laila Essop N.O

Applicant

Imagina (Pty) Ltd (in liquidation)

Applicant

George Michael Maas N.O (in his capacity as Trustee of BHF Trust)

Respondent

George Michael Maas N.O

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Provisional Sequestration and Alternative Payment Order, Heard on Urgent Basis

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for provisional sequestration of the BHF Family Trust is urgent and should be heard on an urgent basis.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have established objective grounds for urgency and inability to obtain substantial redress in due course.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants have locus standi to bring the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to provide objective evidence of ongoing dissipation of the Trust's assets and did not adequately explain the delay in launching the urgent application. The urgency was deemed self-created, as the applicants had knowledge of the Trust's identity since 2023 but only instituted urgent proceedings in 2025, despite already having pending action proceedings for the same relief. The applicants did not demonstrate that they would be unable to obtain substantial redress in due course. Consequently, the court declined to hear the matter as urgent and struck it from the roll without considering the merits.

Court Disposition

Application struck from the roll for lack of urgency; costs awarded against applicants on a punitive scale.

Orders

  • The matter is struck from the roll.
  • The applicants are ordered to pay the costs of this application on a punitive scale, jointly and severally, including the costs of counsel.