Blacher and Others v Britz and Another (2178/09) [2009] ZAECPEHC 46 (4 September 2009)

Blacher and Others v Britz and Another (2178/09) [2009] ZAECPEHC 46 (4 September 2009)

The court found that the applicants in the original urgent ex parte application failed to disclose material facts, specifically the disputed directorship of the third respondent and the cession of shares, both of which were central to the relief sought. The omission of these facts was not adequately explained and was deemed material to the court's decision. The requirements for an interim interdict were not met, as the apprehension of irreparable harm was not substantiated, and neither the balance of convenience nor the existence of alternative remedies was addressed. The order granted was oppressive, vesting control of the third respondent in the minority shareholder and freezing its...

Citation
[2009] ZAECPEHC 46
Parties
Applicant: Colin Stuart Blacher; Applicant: The Blacher Family Trust; Applicant: Glyden Prop 20 (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Frieda Britz; Respondent: Walfrie Trust (IT 471/2000)
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 September 2009
Case Number
2178/09
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Reconsideration of Ex Parte Urgent Order
Outcome
Application for reconsideration allowed; the ex parte urgent order granted on 6 August 2009 is set aside in its entirety.
Judges
Chetty
Legal Topics
Rule 6 12 C Uniform Rules, Ex Parte Applications, Interim Interdict, Material Non Disclosure, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Rule 6 12 C Uniform Rules Ex Parte Applications Interim Interdict Material Non Disclosure Costs Orders

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Colin Stuart Blacher

Applicant

The Blacher Family Trust

Applicant

Glyden Prop 20 (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Frieda Britz

Respondent

Walfrie Trust (IT 471/2000)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Reconsideration of Ex Parte Urgent Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the ex parte urgent order granted on 6 August 2009 should be reconsidered and set aside.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants in the original urgent application failed to disclose material facts.
  3. 3 Whether the requirements for an interim interdict were satisfied.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants in the original urgent ex parte application failed to disclose material facts, specifically the disputed directorship of the third respondent and the cession of shares, both of which were central to the relief sought. The omission of these facts was not adequately explained and was deemed material to the court's decision. The requirements for an interim interdict were not met, as the apprehension of irreparable harm was not substantiated, and neither the balance of convenience nor the existence of alternative remedies was addressed. The order granted was oppressive, vesting control of the third respondent in the minority shareholder and freezing its...

Court Disposition

Application for reconsideration allowed; the ex parte urgent order granted on 6 August 2009 is set aside in its entirety.

Orders

  • The order granted by Dhlodhlo ADJP on 6 August 2009 under case number 2178/09 is set aside in its entirety.
  • The first and second applicants are to pay the costs of this application jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved.