Pooe v Macheke (72144/2018) [2024] ZAGPPHC 366 (10 April 2024)

Pooe v Macheke (72144/2018) [2024] ZAGPPHC 366 (10 April 2024)

The application was dismissed on two main grounds. First, the relief sought by the applicant directly affected the interests of Exodec 286 and Macs Engineers, yet these companies were not joined as parties to the proceedings. The court found the respondent's special plea of non-joinder to be well-founded. Second, the applicant's entitlement to profit sharing arose from the order of Mudau J, which is currently suspended due to the pending application for leave to appeal. The applicant cannot establish a right to the relief while the order is suspended, and this was not a section 18(3) application to put the order into operation pending appeal. The court declined to grant a punitive costs...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPPHC 366
Parties
Applicant: Mpho Rachel Pooe; Respondent: Stanley Tiyani Macheke
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 April 2024
Case Number
72144/2018
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Judgment on Urgent Application for Profit Sharing and Related Relief
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Labuschagne
Legal Topics
Non Joinder, Partnership Dissolution, Profit Sharing, Urgent Interdict, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Land and Property Non Joinder Partnership Dissolution Profit Sharing Urgent Interdict Costs Order

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mpho Rachel Pooe

Applicant

Stanley Tiyani Macheke

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Judgment on Urgent Application for Profit Sharing and Related Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an order for monthly profit sharing from two companies pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the application should be dismissed for non-joinder of the companies whose profits are sought.
  3. 3 Whether the suspended order of Mudau J entitles the applicant to interim relief.

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed on two main grounds. First, the relief sought by the applicant directly affected the interests of Exodec 286 and Macs Engineers, yet these companies were not joined as parties to the proceedings. The court found the respondent's special plea of non-joinder to be well-founded. Second, the applicant's entitlement to profit sharing arose from the order of Mudau J, which is currently suspended due to the pending application for leave to appeal. The applicant cannot establish a right to the relief while the order is suspended, and this was not a section 18(3) application to put the order into operation pending appeal. The court declined to grant a punitive costs...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.