Brand v Potgieter and Others (010361/2024) [2025] ZAGPJHC 561 (4 June 2025)

Brand v Potgieter and Others (010361/2024) [2025] ZAGPJHC 561 (4 June 2025)

The court found that the interlocutory application brought by the applicant in terms of section 163(2)(l) of the Companies Act was irregular. The relief sought in the interlocutory application was already included as alternative relief in the main application, making the interlocutory step superfluous. The statutory process under section 163 requires the court hearing the main application to first determine whether the conduct complained of is oppressive or prejudicial before considering referral to trial. The interlocutory application did not address any procedural compliance issues and conflated substantive statutory provisions with procedural rules. As such, the respondents' Rule 30(1)...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPJHC 561
Parties
Applicant: Christopher John Brand; Respondent: Corien Potgieter; Respondent: Tarryn Witter; Respondent: Brand Potgieter Incorporated
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 June 2025
Case Number
010361/2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Rule 30(1) Application to Set Aside Interlocutory Application as Irregular Step
Outcome
The Rule 30(1) application to set aside the interlocutory application as an irregular step is granted.
Judges
N P Mali
Legal Topics
Irregular Step, Section 163 Companies Act, Oppressive Conduct, Referral to Trial, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Irregular Step Section 163 Companies Act Oppressive Conduct Referral to Trial Costs Order

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher John Brand

Applicant

Corien Potgieter

Respondent

Tarryn Witter

Respondent

Brand Potgieter Incorporated

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Rule 30(1) Application to Set Aside Interlocutory Application as Irregular Step

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the interlocutory application brought in terms of section 163(2)(l) of the Companies Act constitutes an irregular step under Rule 30(1).
  2. 2 Whether the relief sought in the interlocutory application is superfluous given its inclusion as alternative relief in the main application.
  3. 3 Whether the interlocutory application prejudices the respondents by duplicating proceedings and costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the interlocutory application brought by the applicant in terms of section 163(2)(l) of the Companies Act was irregular. The relief sought in the interlocutory application was already included as alternative relief in the main application, making the interlocutory step superfluous. The statutory process under section 163 requires the court hearing the main application to first determine whether the conduct complained of is oppressive or prejudicial before considering referral to trial. The interlocutory application did not address any procedural compliance issues and conflated substantive statutory provisions with procedural rules. As such, the respondents' Rule 30(1)...

Court Disposition

The Rule 30(1) application to set aside the interlocutory application as an irregular step is granted.

Orders

  • The interlocutory application made by the Applicant in terms of section 163(2)(l) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 on 30 April 2024 is set aside as an irregular step.
  • The Applicant is ordered to pay the First, Second and Third Respondents' costs, including the costs of counsel on Scale B.