Forefront Presentation Media CC v Maredi Telecom and Broadcasting (2013/33462) [2017] ZAGPJHC 172 (3 May 2017)

Forefront Presentation Media CC v Maredi Telecom and Broadcasting (2013/33462) [2017] ZAGPJHC 172 (3 May 2017)

The court found that Mr Manala lacked locus standi to bring the rescission application, rendering it fatally defective. Forefront's opposition to the rescission application was reasonable and justified, entitling it to costs. The provisional winding up order was consensual and discharged after payment of the debt, further entitling Forefront to costs. The matter was incorrectly set down on the unopposed roll on 31 July 2014, and Forefront should bear the costs of that postponement. Maredi failed to make any tender regarding costs, necessitating argument on costs, and thus Maredi should bear the costs of the costs argument. The court exercised its discretion in line with general...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPJHC 172
Parties
Applicant: Forefront Presentation Media CC; Respondent: Maredi Telecom and Broadcasting (Pty) Ltd
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 May 2017
Case Number
2013/33462
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Costs Determination Following Settlement and Consent Order
Outcome
Costs awarded as set out in the operative orders.
Judges
Opperman
Legal Topics
Winding Up Proceedings, Rescission Application, Costs Award, Locus Standi, Service of Process
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Winding Up Proceedings Rescission Application Costs Award Locus Standi Service of Process

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Forefront Presentation Media CC

Applicant

Maredi Telecom and Broadcasting (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Costs Determination Following Settlement and Consent Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who should bear the costs of the provisional winding up application.
  2. 2 Who should bear the costs of the rescission application, including urgency.
  3. 3 Who should bear the costs incurred for setting the matter down on the unopposed roll on 31 July 2014.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Mr Manala lacked locus standi to bring the rescission application, rendering it fatally defective. Forefront's opposition to the rescission application was reasonable and justified, entitling it to costs. The provisional winding up order was consensual and discharged after payment of the debt, further entitling Forefront to costs. The matter was incorrectly set down on the unopposed roll on 31 July 2014, and Forefront should bear the costs of that postponement. Maredi failed to make any tender regarding costs, necessitating argument on costs, and thus Maredi should bear the costs of the costs argument. The court exercised its discretion in line with general...

Court Disposition

Costs awarded as set out in the operative orders.

Orders

  • The respondent (Maredi) is ordered to pay the costs of the application for rescission of the final winding up order granted on 17 March 2014, brought urgently and enrolled for 8 April 2014.
  • The respondent (Maredi) is ordered to pay the costs of the provisional winding up application consented to on 8 April 2014 and discharged on 26 May 2014.