Bester N.O. and Others v Quintado 120 (Pty) Ltd (CCT160/21) [2021] ZACC 49; 2022 (11) BCLR 1389 (CC) (13 December 2021)

Bester N.O. and Others v Quintado 120 (Pty) Ltd (CCT160/21) [2021] ZACC 49; 2022 (11) BCLR 1389 (CC) (13 December 2021)

The Constitutional Court held that its jurisdiction was not engaged because the applicants failed to establish a constitutional issue or an arguable point of law of general public importance. The 'directing mind' doctrine is already recognised as flexible and pragmatic in South African law, and the applicants'...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] ZACC 49
Parties
Applicant: Christian Findlay Bester N.O.; Applicant: Legadimane Arthur Maisela N.O.; Applicant: Thomas Christopher Van Zyl N.O.; Respondent: Quintado 120 (Pty) Limited
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 December 2021
Case Number
CCT 160/21
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Constitutional Court After Refusal by the Supreme Court of Appeal.
Outcome
Leave to appeal is refused. Costs are awarded against the applicants, including the costs of two counsel.
Judges
Madlanga, Madondo, Majiedt, Mhlantla, Pillay, Rogers, Theron, Tlaletsi, Tshiqi
Legal Topics
Company Liquidation, Creditor Standing, Directing Mind Doctrine, Enrichment Claims, Development of Common Law
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Company Liquidation Creditor Standing Directing Mind Doctrine Enrichment Claims Development of Common Law

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 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christian Findlay Bester N.O.

Applicant

Legadimane Arthur Maisela N.O.

Applicant

Thomas Christopher Van Zyl N.O.

Applicant

Quintado 120 (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Constitutional Court After Refusal by the Supreme Court of Appeal.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the application engage the Constitutional Court's jurisdiction under section 167(3)(b) of the Constitution?
  2. 2 Should the 'directing mind' doctrine be developed into a more flexible test under South African constitutional principles?
  3. 3 Did the applicants have standing as creditors to seek liquidation of Quintado 120 (Pty) Ltd?

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court held that its jurisdiction was not engaged because the applicants failed to establish a constitutional issue or an arguable point of law of general public importance. The 'directing mind' doctrine is already recognised as flexible and pragmatic in South African law, and the applicants' arguments for further development were unsupported by any infringement of constitutional rights. The matter turned on factual disputes regarding enrichment and creditor standing, which are not suitable for determination by the Constitutional Court. The application for leave to appeal was refused, and costs were awarded against the applicants.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal is refused. Costs are awarded against the applicants, including the costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is refused.
  • The applicants must pay the respondent's costs, including the costs of two counsel.