Meer NO and Others v Nelesco 655 (Pty) Ltd t/a Kenprint and Others (5994/2010) [2010] ZAKZDHC 58 (19 November 2010)

Meer NO and Others v Nelesco 655 (Pty) Ltd t/a Kenprint and Others (5994/2010) [2010] ZAKZDHC 58 (19 November 2010)

Business Partners Ltd, as mortgagee with a perfected notarial bond and power of attorney, does not have locus standi to oppose summary judgment on behalf of the first defendant in these proceedings. The power of attorney was granted for purposes of taking possession and realising pledged goods, not for conducting litigation on behalf of the company. The directors' personal concessions do not bind the company unless made in its name. Business Partners Ltd is not a party to the proceedings and has misconstrued its mandate. The first defendant can only act through its directors, and any opposition to summary judgment must be in its own name. Accordingly, Business Partners Ltd is not...

Citation
[2010] ZAKZDHC 58
Parties
Plaintiff: Unus Ahmed Meer N.O; Plaintiff: Fathima Goolam Hoosen Meer N.O; Plaintiff: Shakeel Ahmed Unus Meer N.O; Plaintiff: Furzana Unus Mitha N.O; Defendant: Nelesco 655 (Pty) Ltd t/a Kenprint; Defendant: Louisa Fourie; Defendant: Greig Brimer
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 November 2010
Case Number
5994/2010
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Application / Judgment on Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Summary judgment granted in favour of the plaintiffs; Business Partners Ltd found not authorised to act; costs awarded against Business Partners Ltd.
Judges
Ngwenya
Legal Topics
Locus Standi, Summary Judgment, Power of Attorney, Lease Cancellation, Eviction, Costs Award
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Locus Standi Summary Judgment Power of Attorney Lease Cancellation Eviction Costs Award

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

Parties

Unus Ahmed Meer N.O

Plaintiff

Fathima Goolam Hoosen Meer N.O

Plaintiff

Shakeel Ahmed Unus Meer N.O

Plaintiff

Furzana Unus Mitha N.O

Plaintiff

Nelesco 655 (Pty) Ltd t/a Kenprint

Defendant

Louisa Fourie

Defendant

Greig Brimer

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment Application / Judgment on Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Business Partners Ltd, as mortgagee with a perfected notarial bond and power of attorney, has locus standi to oppose summary judgment on behalf of the mortgagor.
  2. 2 Whether the power of attorney granted to Business Partners Ltd extends to resisting eviction and raising substantive defences available to the mortgagor.
  3. 3 Whether the directors' personal concession of judgment binds the company in opposition to summary judgment.

Ratio Decidendi

Business Partners Ltd, as mortgagee with a perfected notarial bond and power of attorney, does not have locus standi to oppose summary judgment on behalf of the first defendant in these proceedings. The power of attorney was granted for purposes of taking possession and realising pledged goods, not for conducting litigation on behalf of the company. The directors' personal concessions do not bind the company unless made in its name. Business Partners Ltd is not a party to the proceedings and has misconstrued its mandate. The first defendant can only act through its directors, and any opposition to summary judgment must be in its own name. Accordingly, Business Partners Ltd is not...

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted in favour of the plaintiffs; Business Partners Ltd found not authorised to act; costs awarded against Business Partners Ltd.

Orders

  • Business Partners Ltd is not authorised to act in this matter and is not properly before Court.
  • Business Partners Ltd to pay all costs associated with the opposition of the application for summary judgment.