Moredubi v Barker and Others (21392/2020) [2022] ZAGPPHC 481 (22 June 2022)

Moredubi v Barker and Others (21392/2020) [2022] ZAGPPHC 481 (22 June 2022)

The court found that the applicants have a prima facie right to challenge and present their version regarding the respondents' conclusions about their conduct as directors and majority shareholders of NTEM. The respondents' refusal to postpone the meeting and to afford the applicants an opportunity to respond threatens their right to natural justice and fair procedures. The absence of any answering affidavit from the respondents means there is no rebuttal to the applicants' submissions. The court was satisfied that if the meeting proceeded, the applicants would suffer irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoured granting the interim order. The applicants have no other remedy...

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 481
Parties
Applicant: Sannah Sankie Moredubi; Applicant: Joseph Mabuseng Morebudi; Applicant: Neo Thando Elliot Holdings (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Brad Barker; Respondent: Charles Luyckx; Respondent: Elliot Mobility (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Neo Thando Elliot Mobility (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 June 2022
Case Number
21392/2020
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Interdict Application Under Rule 6(12)(a)
Outcome
Interim interdict granted restraining respondents from proceeding with the meeting to remove applicants as directors pending final determination.
Judges
Sardiwalla
Legal Topics
Interim Interdict, Director Removal, Shareholder Rights, Audi Alteram Partem, Natural Justice, Joint Venture Dispute
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Interim Interdict Director Removal Shareholder Rights Audi Alteram Partem Natural Justice Joint Venture Dispute

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sannah Sankie Moredubi

Applicant

Joseph Mabuseng Morebudi

Applicant

Neo Thando Elliot Holdings (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Brad Barker

Respondent

Charles Luyckx

Respondent

Elliot Mobility (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Neo Thando Elliot Mobility (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interim Interdict Application Under Rule 6(12)(a)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to an interim interdict restraining the respondents from proceeding with the meeting to remove them as directors pending the winding up of NTEM.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have a prima facie right to participate in the management and control of NTEM and to be afforded procedural fairness before removal.
  3. 3 Whether the refusal to postpone the meeting infringes the applicants' rights to natural justice and fair procedures.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants have a prima facie right to challenge and present their version regarding the respondents' conclusions about their conduct as directors and majority shareholders of NTEM. The respondents' refusal to postpone the meeting and to afford the applicants an opportunity to respond threatens their right to natural justice and fair procedures. The absence of any answering affidavit from the respondents means there is no rebuttal to the applicants' submissions. The court was satisfied that if the meeting proceeded, the applicants would suffer irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoured granting the interim order. The applicants have no other remedy...

Court Disposition

Interim interdict granted restraining respondents from proceeding with the meeting to remove applicants as directors pending final determination.

Orders

  • Pending final determination of relief in Part B, respondents are restrained from proceeding with the meeting of the board of directors of Neo Thando Elliot Mobility (Pty) Ltd called by the first and second respondents to determine whether the first and second applicants have been negligent or derelict in their...
  • Respondents, alternatively the first and second respondents, are restrained from holding such meeting and/or taking any steps under section 71 or otherwise that would exclude the first and second applicants from control, management, decision-making, or acts in Neo Thando Elliot Mobility (Pty) Ltd since the Joint...