Moselane v Ikageng Electrical Contractors (Pty) Ltd and Others (2391/2019) [2019] ZAFSHC 106 (18 June 2019)

Moselane v Ikageng Electrical Contractors (Pty) Ltd and Others (2391/2019) [2019] ZAFSHC 106 (18 June 2019)

The court found that the applicant failed to establish urgency as required by Rule 6(12) of the Uniform Rules. The applicant did not provide concrete evidence of harm that would result from following the normal court procedure, nor did he adequately explain the delay in launching the application since the first respondent showed signs of financial distress in March 2019. The court held that the matter had lost any urgency and that the applicant had alternative remedies available, such as opposing the liquidation application. Consequently, the application did not justify dispensing with the prescribed forms and service, and was struck from the roll for lack of urgency.

Citation
[2019] ZAFSHC 106
Parties
Applicant: Goitseone Jonas Moselane; Respondent: Ikageng Electrical Contractors (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Voltex (Pty) Ltd t/a Lighting Structures and Atlas Group; Respondent: ABSA Bank (Pty) Limited
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 June 2019
Case Number
2391/2019
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Strike From Urgent Roll
Outcome
Application struck from the roll for lack of urgency, with costs awarded against the applicant.
Judges
Morobane, AJ
Legal Topics
Business Rescue, Urgency in Motion Proceedings, Companies Act Section 131, Liquidation Application, Rule 6 12 Uniform Rules
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Business Rescue Urgency in Motion Proceedings Companies Act Section 131 Liquidation Application Rule 6 12 Uniform Rules

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Goitseone Jonas Moselane

Applicant

Ikageng Electrical Contractors (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Voltex (Pty) Ltd t/a Lighting Structures and Atlas Group

Respondent

ABSA Bank (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Strike From Urgent Roll

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for business rescue should be heard as an urgent matter.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has demonstrated sufficient urgency to justify deviation from normal court procedures.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has provided adequate reasons for not seeking redress in the ordinary course.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to establish urgency as required by Rule 6(12) of the Uniform Rules. The applicant did not provide concrete evidence of harm that would result from following the normal court procedure, nor did he adequately explain the delay in launching the application since the first respondent showed signs of financial distress in March 2019. The court held that the matter had lost any urgency and that the applicant had alternative remedies available, such as opposing the liquidation application. Consequently, the application did not justify dispensing with the prescribed forms and service, and was struck from the roll for lack of urgency.

Court Disposition

Application struck from the roll for lack of urgency, with costs awarded against the applicant.

Orders

  • The application is struck from the roll for lack of urgency, with costs.