Monnakgotla v Rankgaka and Others (2022-43794) [2023] ZAGPJHC 17 (16 January 2023)

Monnakgotla v Rankgaka and Others (2022-43794) [2023] ZAGPJHC 17 (16 January 2023)

The applicant obtained an ex parte order by presenting a misleading case that the third respondent's funds were diverted to a competing entity with which he had no involvement. In reality, MeatnChill was a joint venture between the applicant and the first and second respondents. The applicant's founding affidavit...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] ZAGPJHC 17
Parties
Applicant: Tshepo Ben Monnakgotla; Respondent: Kaleb Victor Rangaka; Respondent: Oupa Oria Rangaka; Respondent: Vitsou Trading CC; Respondent: Absa Bank Limited; Respondent: Nedbank Limited
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 January 2023
Case Number
2022-43794
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Reconsideration of Ex Parte Order
Outcome
Ex parte order set aside; costs awarded against the applicant.
Judges
Bester
Legal Topics
Ex Parte Orders, Material Nondisclosure, Close Corporation Disputes, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Ex Parte Orders Material Nondisclosure Close Corporation Disputes Costs Orders

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Tshepo Ben Monnakgotla

Applicant

Kaleb Victor Rangaka

Respondent

Oupa Oria Rangaka

Respondent

Vitsou Trading CC

Respondent

Absa Bank Limited

Respondent

Nedbank Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Reconsideration of Ex Parte Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant materially misrepresented facts in the ex parte application.
  2. 2 Whether the ex parte order should be set aside due to nondisclosure of material facts.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to retain the interim relief pending Part B of the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant obtained an ex parte order by presenting a misleading case that the third respondent's funds were diverted to a competing entity with which he had no involvement. In reality, MeatnChill was a joint venture between the applicant and the first and second respondents. The applicant's founding affidavit omitted material facts and fabricated the basis for relief. The attempt to recast the case in reply was impermissible. The court found that the nondisclosure and misrepresentation were material and that the order should be set aside. Costs were awarded against the applicant, including those for reconsideration and wasted costs.

Court Disposition

Ex parte order set aside; costs awarded against the applicant.

Orders

  • The order granted by Maier-Frawley J on 15 November 2022 is set aside.
  • The applicant shall pay the costs of Part A of the application, including the costs pertaining to the reconsideration of the ex parte order and including the wasted costs of Wednesday, 11 January 2023.