Khammissa and Others v Master of the High Court, Gauteng and Others (2017/49832) [2020] ZAGPJHC 179; 2021 (1) SA 421 (GJ) (19 February 2020)

Khammissa and Others v Master of the High Court, Gauteng and Others (2017/49832) [2020] ZAGPJHC 179; 2021 (1) SA 421 (GJ) (19 February 2020)

The court found that the applicants, as joint liquidators, had locus standi to challenge the appointment of additional liquidators where the grievance was not merely about fees but about the legality of the Master’s decision affecting the estate they administer. The Master was functus officio after the first decision refusing the appointment, and lacked statutory authority to issue a second, conflicting appointment. Section 371 of the Companies Act is not the exclusive gateway for review; section 151 of the Insolvency Act remains available where the grievance concerns the legal validity of the appointment, not merely the nomination process. The second appointment was unlawful, arbitrary,...

Citation
[2020] ZAGPJHC 179
Parties
Applicant: Sumaiya Abdool Gafaar Khammissa; Applicant: Bethuel Billyboy Mahlatsi; Applicant: Keheditse Desiree Judith Masege; Applicant: Albert Ivan Surmany; Respondent: The Master of the High Court, Gauteng; Respondent: Gert Louwrens Steyn De Wet; Respondent: Johan Francois Engelbrecht
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 February 2020
Case Number
2017/49832
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Appointment of Liquidators
Outcome
Application granted. The Master’s second appointment of the respondents as liquidators is reviewed and set aside. Costs awarded against the second and third respondents, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
T Siwendu
Legal Topics
Appointment of Liquidators, Functus Officio, Review of Administrative Action, Locus Standi, Companies Act, Insolvency Act
Administrative Law Commercial and Corporate Appointment of Liquidators Functus Officio Review of Administrative Action Locus Standi Companies Act Insolvency Act

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 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sumaiya Abdool Gafaar Khammissa

Applicant

Bethuel Billyboy Mahlatsi

Applicant

Keheditse Desiree Judith Masege

Applicant

Albert Ivan Surmany

Applicant

The Master of the High Court, Gauteng

Respondent

Gert Louwrens Steyn De Wet

Respondent

Johan Francois Engelbrecht

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Appointment of Liquidators

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have locus standi to challenge the appointment of co-liquidators.
  2. 2 Whether the Master was functus officio after the first decision and empowered to issue a second appointment.
  3. 3 What is the correct statutory gateway for review of the Master’s decision: section 151 of the Insolvency Act, section 371 of the Companies Act, or PAJA.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants, as joint liquidators, had locus standi to challenge the appointment of additional liquidators where the grievance was not merely about fees but about the legality of the Master’s decision affecting the estate they administer. The Master was functus officio after the first decision refusing the appointment, and lacked statutory authority to issue a second, conflicting appointment. Section 371 of the Companies Act is not the exclusive gateway for review; section 151 of the Insolvency Act remains available where the grievance concerns the legal validity of the appointment, not merely the nomination process. The second appointment was unlawful, arbitrary,...

Court Disposition

Application granted. The Master’s second appointment of the respondents as liquidators is reviewed and set aside. Costs awarded against the second and third respondents, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The Master’s decision on 25 October 2017 to appoint the second and third respondents as liquidators to Duro Pressing (Pty) Ltd is reviewed and set aside.
  • The Certificate of Appointment dated 25 October 2017 purporting to appoint the second and third respondents as liquidators is set aside.