Lakhanya Logistics CC and Others v Booi and Another (6569/2019) [2020] ZAGPPHC 475 (4 September 2020)

Lakhanya Logistics CC and Others v Booi and Another (6569/2019) [2020] ZAGPPHC 475 (4 September 2020)

The court found that the applicants failed to make out a proper case for termination of the first respondent's membership under section 36(1) of the Close Corporation Act. The founding affidavit was vague and lacked substantiated allegations. The supplementary founding affidavit and amended notice of motion were filed without leave and introduced new evidence and relief, which is impermissible and prejudicial to the respondent. The second applicant's locus standi was not properly established, as there was no written resolution authorising her to institute proceedings. The first respondent's application for postponement was dismissed as lacking merit, given that he and his attorney were...

Citation
[2020] ZAGPPHC 475
Parties
Applicant: Lakhanya Logistics CC; Applicant: Nolitha Radebe; Applicant: Vabaza Bandile; Applicant: Mahlubandile Itumeleng Radebe; Respondent: Thamsanqa Zuko Booi; Respondent: Companies and Intellectual Property Commission
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 September 2020
Case Number
6569/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Opposed Motion; Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Both the application for postponement and the main application were dismissed with costs.
Judges
Fabricius
Legal Topics
Close Corporation Membership, Termination of Membership, Locus Standi, Amendment of Pleadings
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Close Corporation Membership Termination of Membership Locus Standi Amendment of Pleadings

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

Parties

Lakhanya Logistics CC

Applicant

Nolitha Radebe

Applicant

Vabaza Bandile

Applicant

Mahlubandile Itumeleng Radebe

Applicant

Thamsanqa Zuko Booi

Respondent

Companies and Intellectual Property Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Opposed Motion; Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants established grounds for termination of the first respondent's membership under section 36(1) of the Close Corporation Act.
  2. 2 Whether the supplementary affidavits and amended notice of motion were properly before the court.
  3. 3 Whether the second applicant had locus standi to institute proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to make out a proper case for termination of the first respondent's membership under section 36(1) of the Close Corporation Act. The founding affidavit was vague and lacked substantiated allegations. The supplementary founding affidavit and amended notice of motion were filed without leave and introduced new evidence and relief, which is impermissible and prejudicial to the respondent. The second applicant's locus standi was not properly established, as there was no written resolution authorising her to institute proceedings. The first respondent's application for postponement was dismissed as lacking merit, given that he and his attorney were...

Court Disposition

Both the application for postponement and the main application were dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application by the first respondent for a postponement is dismissed with costs.
  • The applicants' application is dismissed with costs.