Griffin Steamworks (Pty) Limited v Thrive Entrepreneurs (Pty) Limited (37624/2019) [2021] ZAGPJHC 628 (10 August 2021)

Griffin Steamworks (Pty) Limited v Thrive Entrepreneurs (Pty) Limited (37624/2019) [2021] ZAGPJHC 628 (10 August 2021)

The application for leave to appeal fails to meet the heightened threshold established by Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act, 2013. The applicant did not rely on Section 345(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 1973 in its founding affidavit or during argument, and thus the court was not required to make a finding under that section. The refusal to accept the supplementary affidavit was a proper exercise of judicial discretion, as no application for leave to file was made and no explanation for the delay was provided. The applicant failed to provide proof of service of the Section 345(1)(a) letter, and did not address this deficiency in reply. There is no reasonable prospect that...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPJHC 628
Parties
Applicant: Griffin Steamworks (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Thrive Entrepreneurs (Pty) Limited
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 August 2021
Case Number
37624/2019
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Judgment and Order Delivered in December 2020
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Judges
Moosajee
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal Standard, Winding Up of Company, Service of Statutory Demand, Supplementary Affidavit Admissibility
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Leave to Appeal Standard Winding Up of Company Service of Statutory Demand Supplementary Affidavit Admissibility

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

Parties

Griffin Steamworks (Pty) Limited

Applicant

Thrive Entrepreneurs (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Judgment and Order Delivered in December 2020

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has met the heightened threshold for leave to appeal under Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act, 2013.
  2. 2 Whether the court erred by not making a finding under Section 345(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 1973.
  3. 3 Whether the court erred in refusing to accept the applicant's supplementary affidavit.

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave to appeal fails to meet the heightened threshold established by Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act, 2013. The applicant did not rely on Section 345(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 1973 in its founding affidavit or during argument, and thus the court was not required to make a finding under that section. The refusal to accept the supplementary affidavit was a proper exercise of judicial discretion, as no application for leave to file was made and no explanation for the delay was provided. The applicant failed to provide proof of service of the Section 345(1)(a) letter, and did not address this deficiency in reply. There is no reasonable prospect that...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.