Manana N.O and Another v Strydom N.O. and Others (Stander N.O. and Another Intervening) (21263/12) [2015] ZAGPPHC 751 (27 October 2015)

Manana N.O and Another v Strydom N.O. and Others (Stander N.O. and Another Intervening) (21263/12) [2015] ZAGPPHC 751 (27 October 2015)

The court found that the contempt application was wholly unfounded and procedurally defective. The applicants failed to demonstrate any contempt of the orders withdrawing actions against them, as there was no evidence that the respondents proceeded against them in defiance of those orders. The affidavits submitted were largely irrelevant and vexatious, focusing on grievances unrelated to the orders in question. The application for intervention by the provisional trustees was justified, as the contempt proceedings were not in the best interests of the insolvent estate or its creditors. The conduct of the applicants' legal representatives was found to be vexatious and unjustifiable,...

Citation
[2015] ZAGPPHC 751
Parties
Applicant: Mshizobombu Manana N.O.; Applicant: Vincent Trevor Smith N.O.; Respondent: Pieter Hendrik Strydom N.O.; Respondent: John Roderick Graeme Polson N.O.; Respondent: Louis Strydom N.O.; Appellant: Coenraad Lourens Stander N.O.; Appellant: Khathazile Simon Mahlangu N.O.
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 October 2015
Case Number
21263/12
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Judgment on Contempt Application and Intervention Application
Outcome
Application for contempt dismissed; intervention application granted; punitive costs awarded against applicants' legal representatives.
Judges
Murphy
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Fiduciary Duties, Withdrawal of Action, Costs De Bonis Propriis, Insolvency Act Section 18, Misrepresentation
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Contempt of Court Fiduciary Duties Withdrawal of Action Costs De Bonis Propriis Insolvency Act Section 18 Misrepresentation

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

Parties

Mshizobombu Manana N.O.

Applicant

Vincent Trevor Smith N.O.

Applicant

Pieter Hendrik Strydom N.O.

Respondent

John Roderick Graeme Polson N.O.

Respondent

Louis Strydom N.O.

Respondent

Coenraad Lourens Stander N.O.

Appellant

Khathazile Simon Mahlangu N.O.

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Judgment on Contempt Application and Intervention Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents are in contempt of court for alleged non-compliance with previous orders withdrawing actions against the applicants.
  2. 2 Whether the intervening trustees should be authorised to intervene and withdraw the contempt application in terms of section 18(3) of the Insolvency Act.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants' legal representatives should be held liable for costs de bonis propriis due to vexatious litigation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the contempt application was wholly unfounded and procedurally defective. The applicants failed to demonstrate any contempt of the orders withdrawing actions against them, as there was no evidence that the respondents proceeded against them in defiance of those orders. The affidavits submitted were largely irrelevant and vexatious, focusing on grievances unrelated to the orders in question. The application for intervention by the provisional trustees was justified, as the contempt proceedings were not in the best interests of the insolvent estate or its creditors. The conduct of the applicants' legal representatives was found to be vexatious and unjustifiable,...

Court Disposition

Application for contempt dismissed; intervention application granted; punitive costs awarded against applicants' legal representatives.

Orders

  • The first and second intervening applicants are granted authorisation to intervene in these proceedings in terms of section 18(3) of the Insolvency Act 24 of 1936.
  • The first applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the application for intervention on the scale of attorney and own client.