Hough v Sisilana and Others (1121/17) [2018] ZASCA 4 (2 February 2018)

Hough v Sisilana and Others (1121/17) [2018] ZASCA 4 (2 February 2018)

The application for reconsideration and variation of the dismissal of leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to establish exceptional circumstances as required by s 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act. The applicant's interpretation of the Attorneys Act was not accepted; the Act requires only individual directors of a personal liability company to hold Fidelity Fund certificates, not the company itself. The applicant's arguments had already been rejected by the High Court, Supreme Court of Appeal, and Constitutional Court. The Master's role is limited to admitting claims based on prima facie evidence, not adjudicating their validity. The applicant's contention that...

Citation
[2018] ZASCA 4
Parties
Applicant: Hendrik Petrus Hough; Respondent: Mzubanzi Sisilana (Assistant Master, WCDHC); Respondent: Seardel Investment Corporation Limited (renamed: E Media Holdings Limited); Respondent: Joint Executors: Estate Late Aaron Searll [Lauren Searll NO, Elliot Osrin NO, Jeffrey Flax NO, David Friedland NO, Quintin Honey NO]; Respondent: Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs Inc.; Respondent: Eugene Nel NO
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 February 2018
Case Number
1121/17
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Reconsideration and Variation of Dismissal of Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for reconsideration and variation of the dismissal of leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
Judges
Maya P
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Exceptional Circumstances, Condonation, Insolvency Act, Fidelity Fund Certificate
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Exceptional Circumstances Condonation Insolvency Act Fidelity Fund Certificate

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hendrik Petrus Hough

Applicant

Mzubanzi Sisilana (Assistant Master, WCDHC)

Respondent

Seardel Investment Corporation Limited (renamed: E Media Holdings Limited)

Respondent

Joint Executors: Estate Late Aaron Searll [Lauren Searll NO, Elliot Osrin NO, Jeffrey Flax NO, David Friedland NO, Quintin Honey NO]

Respondent

Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs Inc.

Respondent

Eugene Nel NO

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Reconsideration and Variation of Dismissal of Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether exceptional circumstances exist to warrant reconsideration and variation of the dismissal of the application for leave to appeal under s 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's interpretation of the Attorneys Act regarding the requirement for a Fidelity Fund certificate for personal liability companies is correct.
  3. 3 Whether the Master erred in admitting claims against the applicant's estate based on taxed bills of costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The application for reconsideration and variation of the dismissal of leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to establish exceptional circumstances as required by s 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act. The applicant's interpretation of the Attorneys Act was not accepted; the Act requires only individual directors of a personal liability company to hold Fidelity Fund certificates, not the company itself. The applicant's arguments had already been rejected by the High Court, Supreme Court of Appeal, and Constitutional Court. The Master's role is limited to admitting claims based on prima facie evidence, not adjudicating their validity. The applicant's contention that...

Court Disposition

Application for reconsideration and variation of the dismissal of leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Condonation as applied for is granted. The applicant is to pay the costs of the application.
  • The application in terms of s 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 is dismissed with costs for lack of exceptional circumstances warranting reconsideration or variation of the decision refusing leave to appeal.