Moropa and Another v Pather and Others (2987/2020) [2020] ZALMPPHC 42 (29 June 2020)

Moropa and Another v Pather and Others (2987/2020) [2020] ZALMPPHC 42 (29 June 2020)

The court found that the applicants lacked locus standi: the First Applicant was not a shareholder but a nominee of the Tswako Mante Trust, and the Second Applicant's claim as heir was unsupported and contradicted by the death certificate and board resolutions. The failure to join the Trust and its trustees, who held a direct and substantial interest, was fatal. The Limpopo High Court lacked jurisdiction, as the majority of parties and companies were situated in Johannesburg. The applicants failed to disclose material facts, including the true shareholding structure and the circumstances of Mr Matjie's removal as director. The use of ex parte proceedings was unjustified and abusive, with...

Citation
[2020] ZALMPPHC 42
Parties
Applicant: Hlahledi Frank Moropa; Applicant: Mahlodi Lilly Nohlala; Respondent: Kinesh Sachidanandan Pather; Respondent: Mogompane Chrome (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Marula Community Chrome (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: The Board of Directors of Mogompane Chrome (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: The Board of Directors of Marula Community Chrome (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Master of the High Court, Polokwane; Respondent: Estate Late Elias Tshidi Mohlala; Respondent: Companies and Intellectual Property Commission; Respondent: Financial Intelligence Centre; Respondent: First National Bank United (FNB); Respondent: Standard Bank Limited; Respondent: Bajabohwa Chrome (Pty) Ltd
Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 June 2020
Case Number
2987/2020
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Reconsideration of Interim Order and Discharge of Rule Nisi
Outcome
Interim order set aside; rule nisi discharged; applicants ordered to pay costs on attorney and client scale.
Judges
E M Makgoba
Legal Topics
Ex Parte Applications, Locus Standi, Non Joinder, Jurisdiction, Punitive Costs, Director Delinquency
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Ex Parte Applications Locus Standi Non Joinder Jurisdiction Punitive Costs Director Delinquency

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 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hlahledi Frank Moropa

Applicant

Mahlodi Lilly Nohlala

Applicant

Kinesh Sachidanandan Pather

Respondent

Mogompane Chrome (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Marula Community Chrome (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

The Board of Directors of Mogompane Chrome (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

The Board of Directors of Marula Community Chrome (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Master of the High Court, Polokwane

Respondent

Estate Late Elias Tshidi Mohlala

Respondent

Companies and Intellectual Property Commission

Respondent

Financial Intelligence Centre

Respondent

First National Bank United (FNB)

Respondent

Standard Bank Limited

Respondent

Bajabohwa Chrome (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Reconsideration of Interim Order and Discharge of Rule Nisi

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants had locus standi to bring the application.
  2. 2 Whether the Tswako Mante Trust and its trustees should have been joined as parties.
  3. 3 Whether the Limpopo High Court had jurisdiction over the matter.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants lacked locus standi: the First Applicant was not a shareholder but a nominee of the Tswako Mante Trust, and the Second Applicant's claim as heir was unsupported and contradicted by the death certificate and board resolutions. The failure to join the Trust and its trustees, who held a direct and substantial interest, was fatal. The Limpopo High Court lacked jurisdiction, as the majority of parties and companies were situated in Johannesburg. The applicants failed to disclose material facts, including the true shareholding structure and the circumstances of Mr Matjie's removal as director. The use of ex parte proceedings was unjustified and abusive, with...

Court Disposition

Interim order set aside; rule nisi discharged; applicants ordered to pay costs on attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The order granted on 26 May 2020 under case number 2987/2020 is reconsidered and set aside.
  • The rule nisi is discharged.