Matebesi and Another v Naicker and Others (2024-041410) [2024] ZAGPJHC 424 (3 April 2024)
The court found that the first respondent failed to perform her statutory duties as business rescue practitioner, including failing to deliver required reports, prepare a business rescue plan, and communicate with affected parties. Her licence to act as business rescue practitioner was suspended and revoked by the CIPC, which statutorily disqualified her from continuing in office. The first respondent did not provide any substantive response to the allegations or justification for remaining in office. The court held that removal is mandatory under section 139(2) and section 138(1) of the Companies Act when the practitioner is no longer licensed. The applicants demonstrated standing as...
- Citation
- [2024] ZAGPJHC 424
- Parties
- Applicant: Matebesi, David Keebine; Applicant: Van Rooyen, Brian George; Respondent: Naicker, Cindy, NO; Respondent: Imfuyo Projects (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Imfuyo Air Products (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: South African Restructuring and Insolvency Practitioners Association NPC; Respondent: Companies and Intellectual Property Commission
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 3 April 2024
- Case Number
- 2024-041410
- Procedural Posture
- Urgent Application / Final Judgment
- Outcome
- Application granted; first respondent removed as business rescue practitioner, new practitioner appointed, punitive costs awarded against first respondent.
- Judges
- Moorcroft
- Legal Topics
- Business Rescue Practitioner Removal, Companies Act Section 139, Failure to Perform Duties, Revocation of Licence, Punitive Costs, Appointment of New Practitioner
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Matebesi, David Keebine
Applicant
Van Rooyen, Brian George
Applicant
Naicker, Cindy, NO
Respondent
Imfuyo Projects (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Imfuyo Air Products (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
South African Restructuring and Insolvency Practitioners Association NPC
Respondent
Companies and Intellectual Property Commission
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the first respondent should be removed as business rescue practitioner under section 139 of the Companies Act.
- 2 Whether the first respondent failed to perform her statutory duties as business rescue practitioner.
- 3 Whether the revocation of the first respondent's licence mandates removal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the first respondent failed to perform her statutory duties as business rescue practitioner, including failing to deliver required reports, prepare a business rescue plan, and communicate with affected parties. Her licence to act as business rescue practitioner was suspended and revoked by the CIPC, which statutorily disqualified her from continuing in office. The first respondent did not provide any substantive response to the allegations or justification for remaining in office. The court held that removal is mandatory under section 139(2) and section 138(1) of the Companies Act when the practitioner is no longer licensed. The applicants demonstrated standing as...
Court Disposition
Application granted; first respondent removed as business rescue practitioner, new practitioner appointed, punitive costs awarded against first respondent.
Orders
- The First Respondent is removed from office as Business Rescue Practitioner of the Second and Third Respondents.
- The First Respondent is directed to immediately cease all work as Business Rescue Practitioner of the Companies in business rescue.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment