Ndlovu v Matsipa and Others (Leave to Appeal) (24564/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 759 (1 August 2024)

Ndlovu v Matsipa and Others (Leave to Appeal) (24564/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 759 (1 August 2024)

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed as the applicant has failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success on any of the grounds advanced. The evidence relied upon by the applicant to prove his shareholding in Sechaba after 2005 is either inadmissible, outdated, or forms part of settlement negotiations and thus cannot be accepted. The applicant was aware of the dispute regarding his shareholding and bore the onus to prove it, which he failed to discharge. The claim for arrear dividends is prescribed, and the applicant has not shown entitlement to the requested documents under PAIA or Sechaba's financial statements for 2021. Furthermore, the applicant lacks locus standi...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPPHC 759
Parties
Applicant: Fred Ndlovu; Respondent: Halekopane Matsipa; Respondent: Phesolo Jackson Mphafudi; Respondent: Thekiso Mzwandile Selele; Respondent: Grant Sean Newton
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 August 2024
Case Number
24564/2022
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal or Full Court
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
JF Grobler
Legal Topics
Shareholder Disputes, Prescription of Claims, Access to Information, Delinquent Directors, Locus Standi
Commercial and Corporate Shareholder Disputes Prescription of Claims Access to Information Delinquent Directors Locus Standi

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fred Ndlovu

Applicant

Halekopane Matsipa

Respondent

Phesolo Jackson Mphafudi

Respondent

Thekiso Mzwandile Selele

Respondent

Grant Sean Newton

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal or Full Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated a reasonable prospect of success on appeal regarding his alleged shareholding in Sechaba Group Holdings (Pty) Ltd after 2005.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's claim for arrear dividends is prescribed.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to obtain documents from the respondents under PAIA and for Sechaba's financial statements for 2021.

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed as the applicant has failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success on any of the grounds advanced. The evidence relied upon by the applicant to prove his shareholding in Sechaba after 2005 is either inadmissible, outdated, or forms part of settlement negotiations and thus cannot be accepted. The applicant was aware of the dispute regarding his shareholding and bore the onus to prove it, which he failed to discharge. The claim for arrear dividends is prescribed, and the applicant has not shown entitlement to the requested documents under PAIA or Sechaba's financial statements for 2021. Furthermore, the applicant lacks locus standi...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the application, including the costs of counsel, taxed on scale C as per rule 69(7) of the rules of court.