Cooper NO and Another v Master of High Court, Bloemfontein and Another (Knipe and Others intervening) (6302/2018) [2019] ZAFSHC 136 (2 May 2019)

Cooper NO and Another v Master of High Court, Bloemfontein and Another (Knipe and Others intervening) (6302/2018) [2019] ZAFSHC 136 (2 May 2019)

The court found that, despite the paucity of evidence regarding the alleged cession of shares, the intervening parties collectively hold a majority shareholding in the companies in liquidation and have a direct and substantial legal interest in the outcome of the review application concerning the removal of the liquidators. The allegations regarding unauthorised payments and the conduct of the liquidators further establish a legal interest that could be prejudicially affected by the judgment. The court exercised its discretion under Rule 12 to grant leave to intervene, noting that the intervening parties should have been joined in the main application. Regarding condonation, although the...

Citation
[2019] ZAFSHC 136
Parties
Applicant: Chavonnes Badenhorst St Clair Cooper N.O.; Applicant: Simon Malebo Rampoporo N.O.; Respondent: The Master of the High Court, Bloemfontein; Respondent: Jacobus Strauss N.O.; Appellant: John Douglas Jansen Knipe; Appellant: Andre Bazzett Jansen Knipe; Appellant: Jackie Vigne; Appellant: Robert Peter Jansen Knipe
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 May 2019
Case Number
6302/2018
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Ruling on Application to Intervene and Condonation
Outcome
Leave to intervene granted to the first, second, third and fourth intervening parties; condonation for late filing of replying affidavit granted; costs of condonation application awarded against the intervening parties.
Judges
I VAN RHYN
Legal Topics
Intervention in Application, Condonation of Late Filing, Liquidation Proceedings, Locus Standi, Shareholder Rights
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Intervention in Application Condonation of Late Filing Liquidation Proceedings Locus Standi Shareholder Rights

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chavonnes Badenhorst St Clair Cooper N.O.

Applicant

Simon Malebo Rampoporo N.O.

Applicant

The Master of the High Court, Bloemfontein

Respondent

Jacobus Strauss N.O.

Respondent

John Douglas Jansen Knipe

Appellant

Andre Bazzett Jansen Knipe

Appellant

Jackie Vigne

Appellant

Robert Peter Jansen Knipe

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Ruling on Application to Intervene and Condonation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the intervening parties have locus standi to intervene in the main application regarding the liquidation of the companies.
  2. 2 Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of the replying affidavit by the intervening parties.
  3. 3 Whether the intervening parties have a direct and substantial legal interest in the subject matter of the main application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, despite the paucity of evidence regarding the alleged cession of shares, the intervening parties collectively hold a majority shareholding in the companies in liquidation and have a direct and substantial legal interest in the outcome of the review application concerning the removal of the liquidators. The allegations regarding unauthorised payments and the conduct of the liquidators further establish a legal interest that could be prejudicially affected by the judgment. The court exercised its discretion under Rule 12 to grant leave to intervene, noting that the intervening parties should have been joined in the main application. Regarding condonation, although the...

Court Disposition

Leave to intervene granted to the first, second, third and fourth intervening parties; condonation for late filing of replying affidavit granted; costs of condonation application awarded against the intervening parties.

Orders

  • The first, second, third and fourth intervening parties are granted leave to intervene as respondents in the main application.
  • The intervening parties’ application for condonation of their failure to file the replying affidavit in the application to intervene is granted.