Liebman and Others v Moloto N.O and Others (86185/19) [2021] ZAGPPHC 225 (28 April 2021)

Liebman and Others v Moloto N.O and Others (86185/19) [2021] ZAGPPHC 225 (28 April 2021)

The applicants failed to establish locus standi, as they were neither directors, shareholders, nor creditors of Villa Rivage (Pty) Ltd. Their occupation of the property did not confer sufficient legal interest. The allegations of fraud were general and unsubstantiated, and no action to set aside the voluntary liquidation had been instituted as contemplated. The requirements for an interim interdict were not met: no prima facie right was shown, no irreparable harm was demonstrated, and the balance of convenience did not favour the applicants. The application for removal from the roll was, in substance, a request for postponement without good cause and was refused. The main application was...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 225
Parties
Applicant: Bradley Brett Liebman; Applicant: Andrea Anthea Liebman; Applicant: Bradley Brett Liebman N.O.; Applicant: Andrea Anthea Liebman N.O.; Applicant: Alfredo Figueiredo Pereira Campos N.O.; Respondent: Lebogang Michael Moloto N.O.; Respondent: Mabatho Shirley Motimele N.O.; Respondent: Malebo Rian Elisa Moloto N.O.; Respondent: The Master of the High Court
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 April 2021
Case Number
86185/19
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Reasons for Order Following Dismissal of Application for Interim Interdict
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs awarded against the applicants, jointly and severally.
Judges
Y Coertzen
Legal Topics
Voluntary Liquidation, Locus Standi, Interim Interdict, Fraudulent Liquidation, Companies Act Section 388
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Voluntary Liquidation Locus Standi Interim Interdict Fraudulent Liquidation Companies Act Section 388

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bradley Brett Liebman

Applicant

Andrea Anthea Liebman

Applicant

Bradley Brett Liebman N.O.

Applicant

Andrea Anthea Liebman N.O.

Applicant

Alfredo Figueiredo Pereira Campos N.O.

Applicant

Lebogang Michael Moloto N.O.

Respondent

Mabatho Shirley Motimele N.O.

Respondent

Malebo Rian Elisa Moloto N.O.

Respondent

The Master of the High Court

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Reasons for Order Following Dismissal of Application for Interim Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have locus standi to seek an interim interdict against the liquidators of Villa Rivage (Pty) Ltd.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have established a prima facie right to the relief sought.
  3. 3 Whether the voluntary liquidation of Villa Rivage was fraudulent or unlawful.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to establish locus standi, as they were neither directors, shareholders, nor creditors of Villa Rivage (Pty) Ltd. Their occupation of the property did not confer sufficient legal interest. The allegations of fraud were general and unsubstantiated, and no action to set aside the voluntary liquidation had been instituted as contemplated. The requirements for an interim interdict were not met: no prima facie right was shown, no irreparable harm was demonstrated, and the balance of convenience did not favour the applicants. The application for removal from the roll was, in substance, a request for postponement without good cause and was refused. The main application was...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs awarded against the applicants, jointly and severally.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicants are ordered, jointly and severally, to pay the liquidators' costs.