Naude and Another v Servigraph 42 Close Corporation and Others (21236/2021) [2021] ZAGPPHC 352 (14 May 2021)

Naude and Another v Servigraph 42 Close Corporation and Others (21236/2021) [2021] ZAGPPHC 352 (14 May 2021)

The court found that the termination of business rescue proceedings was valid and effected jointly by both practitioners, as evidenced by correspondence and the sequence of events. The applicants failed to launch the intended application to challenge the dissenting vote, and the practitioners acted in accordance with statutory requirements. The court also held that the applicants' attempt to introduce new issues in the replying affidavit was impermissible in the absence of exceptional circumstances, as it would prejudice the respondents and undermine the purpose of urgent proceedings. Consequently, the application was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 352
Parties
Applicant: Dekker Naude; Applicant: Johannes Jacobus Nel; Respondent: Servigraph 42 Close Corporation; Respondent: Wayne Robert Clark N.O; Respondent: Raynold Sello Mkhondo N.O; Respondent: The Master of the High Court, Pretoria; Respondent: The Companies and Intellectual Property Commission; Respondent: Firstrand Bank Limited
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 May 2021
Case Number
21236/2021
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Relief to Set Aside Termination of Business Rescue Proceedings
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
NE Nkosi
Legal Topics
Business Rescue Termination, Companies Act Section 153, Urgent Application Requirements, Joint Action by Practitioners
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Business Rescue Termination Companies Act Section 153 Urgent Application Requirements Joint Action by Practitioners

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dekker Naude

Applicant

Johannes Jacobus Nel

Applicant

Servigraph 42 Close Corporation

Respondent

Wayne Robert Clark N.O

Respondent

Raynold Sello Mkhondo N.O

Respondent

The Master of the High Court, Pretoria

Respondent

The Companies and Intellectual Property Commission

Respondent

Firstrand Bank Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Relief to Set Aside Termination of Business Rescue Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the notice of termination of business rescue proceedings filed by one practitioner was valid.
  2. 2 Whether both business rescue practitioners acted jointly in terminating the business rescue.
  3. 3 Whether new issues raised in the replying affidavit should be allowed in urgent motion proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the termination of business rescue proceedings was valid and effected jointly by both practitioners, as evidenced by correspondence and the sequence of events. The applicants failed to launch the intended application to challenge the dissenting vote, and the practitioners acted in accordance with statutory requirements. The court also held that the applicants' attempt to introduce new issues in the replying affidavit was impermissible in the absence of exceptional circumstances, as it would prejudice the respondents and undermine the purpose of urgent proceedings. Consequently, the application was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.