Botha v Jamanzi Electrical CC and Others (66223/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 851 (17 November 2017)

Botha v Jamanzi Electrical CC and Others (66223/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 851 (17 November 2017)

The court found that the third and fourth respondents could not be held in contempt of the order dated 9 September 2015 as they were not parties to that order. The applicant failed to show that the second respondent breached the order. However, the court held that the applicant, as a minority member, was entitled to relief under the Close Corporation Act due to the unlawful exclusion and interference by the third and fourth respondents in the management of the first respondent. The applicant was declared the sole member entitled to represent and transact on behalf of the first respondent, and the respondents were interdicted from further interference. The fifth respondent was ordered to...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 851
Parties
Applicant: Levinaux Murandt Botha; Respondent: Jamanzi Electrical CC; Respondent: July Phillemon Mkhoza; Respondent: Monaheyns; Respondent: Adries Stockenstroom Heyns; Respondent: Amanzi Live Line (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Standard Bank of South Africa; Respondent: Firstrand Bank Limited
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 November 2017
Case Number
66223/2015
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Contempt and Interim Relief Under the Close Corporation Act
Outcome
Application for contempt dismissed; relief under the Close Corporation Act granted in favour of the applicant.
Judges
CJ Van der Westhuizen
Legal Topics
Close Corporation Act, Contempt of Court, Minority Member Rights, Interdict, Corporate Governance
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Close Corporation Act Contempt of Court Minority Member Rights Interdict Corporate Governance

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Levinaux Murandt Botha

Applicant

Jamanzi Electrical CC

Respondent

July Phillemon Mkhoza

Respondent

Monaheyns

Respondent

Adries Stockenstroom Heyns

Respondent

Amanzi Live Line (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Standard Bank of South Africa

Respondent

Firstrand Bank Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Contempt and Interim Relief Under the Close Corporation Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the third and fourth respondents are in contempt of the court order dated 9 September 2015.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to relief under the Close Corporation Act, 69 of 1984, pending finalization of the urgent application.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to be declared the sole member entitled to represent and transact on behalf of the first respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the third and fourth respondents could not be held in contempt of the order dated 9 September 2015 as they were not parties to that order. The applicant failed to show that the second respondent breached the order. However, the court held that the applicant, as a minority member, was entitled to relief under the Close Corporation Act due to the unlawful exclusion and interference by the third and fourth respondents in the management of the first respondent. The applicant was declared the sole member entitled to represent and transact on behalf of the first respondent, and the respondents were interdicted from further interference. The fifth respondent was ordered to...

Court Disposition

Application for contempt dismissed; relief under the Close Corporation Act granted in favour of the applicant.

Orders

  • The fifth respondent is directed to pay the first respondent the sum of R 1 908 830.00 forthwith.
  • Pending final determination of the urgent application, the applicant is declared the sole member entitled to represent and transact on behalf of the first respondent.