Lyconet Austria Gmbh v Weighelhofor and Others (2023/082122) [2024] ZAGPJHC 72 (31 January 2024)
The court found that the matter was not ready to proceed as essential documents, such as heads of argument, were not on file. Given the seriousness of the allegations that Lyconet South Africa operated a Ponzi scheme and the need for provisional liquidators to investigate, the interests of justice required an...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] ZAGPJHC 72
- Parties
- Applicant: Lyconet Austria GmBH; Respondent: Albert Weigelhofer; Respondent: Wayne Krambeck; Respondent: Onicaflex (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Ralph Farrel Lutchman N.O; Respondent: Lindiwe Florence Kaab N.O; Respondent: Lyconet South Africa (Pty) Ltd (in liquidation); Respondent: Master of the High Court – Johannesburg
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 2023/082122
- Procedural Posture
- Urgent Application / Return Day of Provisional Liquidation; Application for Postponement and Extension of Provisional Winding Up.
- Outcome
- Provisional liquidation extended; costs reserved.
- Judges
- GC Wright
- Legal Topics
- Provisional Liquidation, Postponement of Hearing, Ponzi Scheme Allegations
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Lyconet Austria GmBH
Applicant
Albert Weigelhofer
Respondent
Wayne Krambeck
Respondent
Onicaflex (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Ralph Farrel Lutchman N.O
Respondent
Lindiwe Florence Kaab N.O
Respondent
Lyconet South Africa (Pty) Ltd (in liquidation)
Respondent
Master of the High Court – Johannesburg
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Return Day of Provisional Liquidation; Application for Postponement and Extension of Provisional Winding Up.
Legal Issues
- 1 Should the provisional liquidation of Lyconet South Africa be extended pending further investigation and readiness for hearing?
- 2 Is a postponement of the return day justified due to unreadiness and the need for further inquiry by provisional liquidators?
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the matter was not ready to proceed as essential documents, such as heads of argument, were not on file. Given the seriousness of the allegations that Lyconet South Africa operated a Ponzi scheme and the need for provisional liquidators to investigate, the interests of justice required an extension of the provisional liquidation period. The court therefore ordered that the provisional liquidation be extended to allow for proper preparation and investigation before the matter is heard.
Court Disposition
Provisional liquidation extended; costs reserved.
Orders
- The provisional liquidation of the respondent is extended to 13 May 2024, opposed roll.
- Costs reserved.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
71 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO: 2023-082122
1. Reportable: No
2.Of interest to other judges: No 3. Revised
31 January 2024
In the matter between:
LYCONET AUSTRIA GmBH
Intervening Applicant
And
ALBERT WEIGHELHOFER
First Respondent
WAYNE KRAMBECK
Second Respondent
ONICAFLEX (PTY) LTD
Third Respondent
RALPH FARREL LUTCHMAN N.O
Fourth Respondent
LINDIWE FLORENCE KAAB N.O
Fifth Respondent
LYCONET SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD
Sixth Respondent
(in liquidation)
MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT – JOHANNESBURG Seventh Respondent
In re:
ALBERT WEIGLHOFER
First Applicant
WAYNE KRAMBECK
Second Applicant
ONICAFLEX (PTY) LTD
Third Applicant
and
LYCONET SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD
Respondent
JUDGMENT
WRIGHT J
The applicants in the main application sought the final winding up of the respondent, Lyconet South Africa. On 12 September, 2023 such an order was granted. On 20 October, 2023 the order was rescinded and Lyconet was placed in provisional winding up with a return day of 29 January, 2024.
Before me now is the question of what is to happen on the return day.
The matter is not ready to proceed as various documents like heads of argument are not on file.
In the meantime, Lyconet Austria, the holding company of Lyconet South Africa, seeks to intervene as a party, or has been admitted as a party. It is not necessary to go further into this question.
The original applicants for winding up now seek a postponement with extension of the provisional winding up. The grounds relied on include the unreadiness of the matter for hearing and the need for the provisional liquidators to look into the matter. This case concerns allegations that Lyconet South Africa ran a Ponzi scheme. In my view, justice requires extension of the rule.
ORDER
1.The provisional liquidation of the respondent is extended to 13 May, 2024, opposed roll.
2. Costs reserved.
GC Wright
Judge of the High Court
Gauteng Division, Johannesburg
HEARD
:31 January 2024
DELIVERED :31 January 2024
APPEARANCES :
INTERVENING APPLICANT
Adv C Bothma SC
Adv W Bezuidenhout
advwillem@gmail.com
082 780 6067
Adv S Mathe
Instructed by
SKV Attorneys
psmith@skvattorneys.co.za
1ST TO 3RD RESPONDENTS
Adv N Cassim SC
083 308 3094
ncassim@law.co.za
L Acker
082 853 9883
lizelle@ackerlaw.co.za
Instructed by
Magda Kets Attorneys
082 371 5376
admin2@magdakets.co.za / admin5@magdakets.co.za