New Shelf 944 (Pty) Limited and Another v Mashaba (2017/48910) [2018] ZAGPJHC 562 (28 September 2018)

New Shelf 944 (Pty) Limited and Another v Mashaba (2017/48910) [2018] ZAGPJHC 562 (28 September 2018)

The court found that the respondent failed to show good cause for postponement. The consent order was based on a comprehensive settlement agreement resolving multiple disputes between the parties, including allegations of fraud. The respondent's unilateral cancellation of the settlement agreement did not justify non-compliance with the court order, as no stay or suspension had been granted. The respondent did not bring a counter-claim to set aside the consent order on grounds of fraud, and there were no reasonable prospects of successfully challenging the underlying causa. The postponement application was not bona fide and appeared to be a tactical manoeuvre to delay enforcement....

Citation
[2018] ZAGPJHC 562
Parties
Applicant: New Shelf 944 (Pty) Limited; Applicant: Ntshangase, Mbulelo Simon; Respondent: Mashaba, Jabulani Hlamarisa Pride
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 September 2018
Case Number
2017/48910
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Application for Postponement and Enforcement of Consent Order
Outcome
Application for postponement refused; relief under the main application granted to the applicants.
Judges
Nkosi-Thomas
Legal Topics
Consent Order Enforcement, Postponement, Share Transfer, Settlement Agreement, Stay of Execution
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Consent Order Enforcement Postponement Share Transfer Settlement Agreement Stay of Execution

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

New Shelf 944 (Pty) Limited

Applicant

Ntshangase, Mbulelo Simon

Applicant

Mashaba, Jabulani Hlamarisa Pride

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Application for Postponement and Enforcement of Consent Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent has shown good cause for the postponement of the main application.
  2. 2 Whether the consent order dated 11 September 2017 should be enforced against the respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent is in contempt of the consent order by failing to deliver the share certificate and transfer form.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent failed to show good cause for postponement. The consent order was based on a comprehensive settlement agreement resolving multiple disputes between the parties, including allegations of fraud. The respondent's unilateral cancellation of the settlement agreement did not justify non-compliance with the court order, as no stay or suspension had been granted. The respondent did not bring a counter-claim to set aside the consent order on grounds of fraud, and there were no reasonable prospects of successfully challenging the underlying causa. The postponement application was not bona fide and appeared to be a tactical manoeuvre to delay enforcement....

Court Disposition

Application for postponement refused; relief under the main application granted to the applicants.

Orders

  • The respondent is ordered to deliver his share certificate in respect of his 50% shareholding in the first applicant within four calendar months from the grant of the order.
  • The respondent is ordered to deliver a duly completed and signed share transfer form for his 50% shareholding in the first applicant to be transferred to the second applicant within four calendar months.