Muller and Another v Master of the High Court and Others (2023/097464) [2025] ZAGPPHC 305 (14 March 2025)

Muller and Another v Master of the High Court and Others (2023/097464) [2025] ZAGPPHC 305 (14 March 2025)

The court found that the challenge to the First Applicant's removal as joint liquidator was moot, as he had been reinstated and no live controversy remained. The First Applicant lacked locus standi both in his personal capacity and as joint liquidator, as he was not a creditor and had not been authorised by the other joint liquidators or creditors to institute proceedings. The winding up process is creditor-driven, and litigation on behalf of the insolvent estate requires proper authorisation. As these findings were dispositive, the court did not consider the reviewability of the appointment of the Sixth Respondent under PAJA.

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 305
Parties
Applicant: Johannes Zacharias Muller; Applicant: Johannes Zacharias Muller N.O; Respondent: The Master of the High Court; Respondent: Ms Penelope Roberts N.O; Respondent: Acting Chief Master of the Republic of South Africa Adv Andries Ramolurana; Respondent: The Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development; Respondent: The Director General of the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development; Respondent: Enver Mohammed Motala
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 March 2025
Case Number
2023/097464
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel where employed. Costs to be paid by the First Applicant only.
Judges
R Ramawele
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Judicial Review, Locus Standi, Appointment of Liquidators, Mootness
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Judicial Review Locus Standi Appointment of Liquidators Mootness

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johannes Zacharias Muller

Applicant

Johannes Zacharias Muller N.O

Applicant

The Master of the High Court

Respondent

Ms Penelope Roberts N.O

Respondent

Acting Chief Master of the Republic of South Africa Adv Andries Ramolurana

Respondent

The Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development

Respondent

The Director General of the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development

Respondent

Enver Mohammed Motala

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the removal of the First Applicant as joint liquidator is moot.
  2. 2 Whether the Applicants have locus standi to institute these proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether the appointment of the Sixth Respondent as joint liquidator is reviewable under PAJA.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the challenge to the First Applicant's removal as joint liquidator was moot, as he had been reinstated and no live controversy remained. The First Applicant lacked locus standi both in his personal capacity and as joint liquidator, as he was not a creditor and had not been authorised by the other joint liquidators or creditors to institute proceedings. The winding up process is creditor-driven, and litigation on behalf of the insolvent estate requires proper authorisation. As these findings were dispositive, the court did not consider the reviewability of the appointment of the Sixth Respondent under PAJA.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel where employed. Costs to be paid by the First Applicant only.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs, such costs to include the costs of two counsel wherever so employed.
  • Costs to be paid by the First Applicant only.