Du Preez No and Others v Aseole Investments Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others (UM149/2020) [2020] ZANWHC 69 (22 October 2020)

Du Preez No and Others v Aseole Investments Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others (UM149/2020) [2020] ZANWHC 69 (22 October 2020)

The court found that the first respondent, being under provisional liquidation, lacked locus standi to bring the ex parte application of 14 August 2020, and the second respondent, acting as director, could not act independently in the absence of the company. The respondents failed to provide any justification for not anticipating the return date of the rule nisi as permitted by Rule 6(12)(c), instead opting for an ex parte application under Rule 45A, which was inappropriate. The conduct of the respondents and their attorneys constituted an abuse of court process, unnecessarily prolonging the matter. The attorneys for the first and second respondents acted improperly by launching...

Citation
[2020] ZANWHC 69
Parties
Applicant: Andre Petrus Du Preez N.O.; Applicant: Wanda Du Preez N.O.; Applicant: Andre Petrus Du Preez; Respondent: Aseole Investments Holdings (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Katlego Wayne Thage; Respondent: Any other person or legal entity who associates themselves with the unlawful conduct of the 1st and 2nd Respondents; Respondent: New Venture Mining Investment Holding (Pty) Ltd
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 October 2020
Case Number
UM149/2020
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Reasons for Judgment Following Interlocutory Orders and Rescission Application
Outcome
The point in limine of lack of locus standi by the first and second respondents was upheld; the ex parte order of 14 August 2020 was rescinded; the rule nisi of 5 August 2020 was reinstated; costs of the application were ordered to be paid by the attorney of the first and second respondents de bonis propriis.
Judges
J T Djaje
Legal Topics
Locus Standi, Urgent Interdict, Rescission of Order, Costs De Bonis Propriis, Mining Rights, Lease Agreement
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Locus Standi Urgent Interdict Rescission of Order Costs De Bonis Propriis Mining Rights Lease Agreement

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andre Petrus Du Preez N.O.

Applicant

Wanda Du Preez N.O.

Applicant

Andre Petrus Du Preez

Applicant

Aseole Investments Holdings (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Katlego Wayne Thage

Respondent

Any other person or legal entity who associates themselves with the unlawful conduct of the 1st and 2nd Respondents

Respondent

New Venture Mining Investment Holding (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Reasons for Judgment Following Interlocutory Orders and Rescission Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first and second respondents had locus standi to bring the ex parte application of 14 August 2020.
  2. 2 Whether the ex parte order granted on 14 August 2020 should be rescinded.
  3. 3 Whether the attorneys for the first and second respondents should be ordered to pay costs de bonis propriis for improper conduct.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the first respondent, being under provisional liquidation, lacked locus standi to bring the ex parte application of 14 August 2020, and the second respondent, acting as director, could not act independently in the absence of the company. The respondents failed to provide any justification for not anticipating the return date of the rule nisi as permitted by Rule 6(12)(c), instead opting for an ex parte application under Rule 45A, which was inappropriate. The conduct of the respondents and their attorneys constituted an abuse of court process, unnecessarily prolonging the matter. The attorneys for the first and second respondents acted improperly by launching...

Court Disposition

The point in limine of lack of locus standi by the first and second respondents was upheld; the ex parte order of 14 August 2020 was rescinded; the rule nisi of 5 August 2020 was reinstated; costs of the application were ordered to be paid by the attorney of the first and second respondents de bonis propriis.

Orders

  • The point in limine of lack of locus standi by the first and second respondents is upheld.
  • The ex parte order granted on 14 August 2020 is rescinded.