Ntloko v Sigaba and Others (2427/2017) [2018] ZAECMHC 23 (8 May 2018)

Ntloko v Sigaba and Others (2427/2017) [2018] ZAECMHC 23 (8 May 2018)

The court found that the first respondent acted unilaterally and in contravention of the proper management procedures of the close corporation, failing to call meetings or seek resolutions from other members. The applicant was justified in approaching the court due to the breakdown in relations and the ineffectiveness of internal remedies. The first respondent's offers of cooperation were conditional and did not address the underlying issues. There was no valid reason to depart from the general rule that costs follow the result, and the applicant established good reasons for pursuing the application to finality.

Citation
[2018] ZAECMHC 23
Parties
Applicant: Peace Nompepho Ntloko; Respondent: Shakespeare Mbonisi Sigaba; Respondent: Mashack Mkhululi Mkhunyana; Respondent: Cwayita Properties CC; Respondent: First Rand Bank Limited; Respondent: Standard Bank of SA Limited
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 May 2018
Case Number
2427/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Costs Determination After Settlement of Substantive Relief
Outcome
Application for costs granted in favour of the applicant.
Judges
RWN Brooks
Legal Topics
Close Corporation Management, Costs Award, Unilateral Action by Member
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Close Corporation Management Costs Award Unilateral Action by Member

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peace Nompepho Ntloko

Applicant

Shakespeare Mbonisi Sigaba

Respondent

Mashack Mkhululi Mkhunyana

Respondent

Cwayita Properties CC

Respondent

First Rand Bank Limited

Respondent

Standard Bank of SA Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Costs Determination After Settlement of Substantive Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was justified in instituting proceedings against the first respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the first respondent's conduct warranted an adverse costs order.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant should have attempted further internal remedies before approaching the court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the first respondent acted unilaterally and in contravention of the proper management procedures of the close corporation, failing to call meetings or seek resolutions from other members. The applicant was justified in approaching the court due to the breakdown in relations and the ineffectiveness of internal remedies. The first respondent's offers of cooperation were conditional and did not address the underlying issues. There was no valid reason to depart from the general rule that costs follow the result, and the applicant established good reasons for pursuing the application to finality.

Court Disposition

Application for costs granted in favour of the applicant.

Orders

  • The first respondent is directed to pay the costs of this application on an opposed basis and on the scale as between party and party.