Komani Discount Centre (Pty) Ltd v Schoultz and Others (4954/2016) [2017] ZAECGHC 81 (20 June 2017)

Komani Discount Centre (Pty) Ltd v Schoultz and Others (4954/2016) [2017] ZAECGHC 81 (20 June 2017)

The court held that, although the application for default judgment was unopposed and the defendants were barred, the nature of the relief sought under Section 64 of the Close Corporations Act was not for a liquidated claim or debt. In such cases, Rule 31(2)(a) requires the court to hear evidence before granting...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] ZAECGHC 81
Parties
Plaintiff: Komani Discount Centre (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Pieter Schoultz; Defendant: Zelda Doreen Schoultz; Defendant: Triosafe Transport CC
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 June 2017
Case Number
4954/2016
Procedural Posture
Default Judgment Application / Application for Default Judgment After Defendants Barred for Failure to Plead
Outcome
Application for default judgment dismissed with costs.
Judges
NG Beshe
Legal Topics
Close Corporations Act Section 64, Reckless Trading, Default Judgment, Liquidated and Unliquidated Claims
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Close Corporations Act Section 64 Reckless Trading Default Judgment Liquidated and Unliquidated Claims

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Komani Discount Centre (Pty) Ltd

Plaintiff

Pieter Schoultz

Defendant

Zelda Doreen Schoultz

Defendant

Triosafe Transport CC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Default Judgment Application / Application for Default Judgment After Defendants Barred for Failure to Plead

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants can be declared personally liable for the debts of Triosafe Transport CC under Section 64 of the Close Corporations Act for reckless or grossly negligent conduct.
  2. 2 Whether default judgment can be granted without evidence in respect of unliquidated claims.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, although the application for default judgment was unopposed and the defendants were barred, the nature of the relief sought under Section 64 of the Close Corporations Act was not for a liquidated claim or debt. In such cases, Rule 31(2)(a) requires the court to hear evidence before granting default judgment. The plaintiff failed to lead any evidence to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the defendants had acted recklessly or with gross negligence in the conduct of Triosafe Transport CC's business. The court relied on the principle established in Minnaar v Van Rooyen NO, which requires evidence to be led for such relief. Consequently, the application for...

Court Disposition

Application for default judgment dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for default judgment is dismissed with costs.