Nobre and Another v Sneech and Others (50088/2017) [2020] ZAGPPHC 513 (10 September 2020)

Nobre and Another v Sneech and Others (50088/2017) [2020] ZAGPPHC 513 (10 September 2020)

The court found that the applicants failed to establish the necessary locus standi to seek rescission of the judgment or order. The applicants did not demonstrate a sufficiently direct and substantial legal interest in the subject-matter of the original order, nor did they show that the judgment was erroneously sought in their absence as required by Rule 42. The court held that being a director or shareholder does not automatically confer locus standi for rescission purposes. The grounds of appeal raised by the applicants were considered and found to lack merit. The court concluded that there were no reasonable prospects of success on appeal, as the issues had been thoroughly addressed in...

Citation
[2020] ZAGPPHC 513
Parties
Applicant: Rui Miguel Rodrigues Nobre; Applicant: R N Griffin Investments (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Barry Hylton Sneech; Respondent: The Companies and Intellectual Property Commission; Respondent: Blue Dot Properties 56 (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 September 2020
Case Number
50088/2017
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Full Court
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Le Grange
Legal Topics
Locus Standi, Rescission of Judgment, Rule 42 Uniform Rules, Company Restoration, Leave to Appeal
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Locus Standi Rescission of Judgment Rule 42 Uniform Rules Company Restoration Leave to Appeal

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rui Miguel Rodrigues Nobre

Applicant

R N Griffin Investments (Pty) Limited

Applicant

Barry Hylton Sneech

Respondent

The Companies and Intellectual Property Commission

Respondent

Blue Dot Properties 56 (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Full Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have established locus standi to seek rescission of the judgment or order.
  2. 2 Whether the court was functus officio in respect of the order sought to be appealed.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants were entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard before the original order was granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to establish the necessary locus standi to seek rescission of the judgment or order. The applicants did not demonstrate a sufficiently direct and substantial legal interest in the subject-matter of the original order, nor did they show that the judgment was erroneously sought in their absence as required by Rule 42. The court held that being a director or shareholder does not automatically confer locus standi for rescission purposes. The grounds of appeal raised by the applicants were considered and found to lack merit. The court concluded that there were no reasonable prospects of success on appeal, as the issues had been thoroughly addressed in...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.