Ragavan and Others v Klopper N.O. and Others (12897/2018) [2018] ZAGPPHC 230 (3 May 2018)

Ragavan and Others v Klopper N.O. and Others (12897/2018) [2018] ZAGPPHC 230 (3 May 2018)

The court found that exceptional circumstances existed due to the public interest in the rescue entities, their role in supplying coal to Eskom, and the ongoing investigations into state capture. Denial of access to the premises would prevent the rescue practitioners from fulfilling statutory duties and could result in irreparable harm to the national economy and the public. The premises were established as the nerve centre of the rescue entities, and unrestricted access was necessary for effective business rescue. The defence of non-joinder was rejected, as the entities allegedly affected were represented by the appellants and had no direct and substantial interest. The court concluded...

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 230
Parties
Appellant: Ronica Ragavan; Appellant: Reshma Moopanar; Appellant: Vidya Mudauar; Appellant: Pushpaveni Ugeshni Govender; Appellant: Ashu Cwala; Appellant: George Peter van der Merwe; Appellant: Mduduzi Joseph Mtshali; Appellant: Salim Aziz Essa; Respondent: Johan Louis Klopper N.O.; Respondent: Kurt Robert Knoop N.O.; Respondent: Juanito Martin Damons N.O.; Respondent: Kgashane Christopher Monyela N.O.
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 May 2018
Case Number
12897/2018
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Appeal Against Execution Order Under Section 18 of the Superior Courts Act
Outcome
Leave to appeal against the execution of the order of 13 April 2018 is refused. Costs awarded against the appellants jointly and severally on an attorney and client scale, including costs of two counsel where employed.
Judges
M Tsoka, S Weiner, J Teffo
Legal Topics
Business Rescue, Section 18 Execution, Irreparable Harm, Exceptional Circumstances, Non Joinder, Management Control
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Business Rescue Section 18 Execution Irreparable Harm Exceptional Circumstances Non Joinder Management Control

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ronica Ragavan

Appellant

Reshma Moopanar

Appellant

Vidya Mudauar

Appellant

Pushpaveni Ugeshni Govender

Appellant

Ashu Cwala

Appellant

George Peter van der Merwe

Appellant

Mduduzi Joseph Mtshali

Appellant

Salim Aziz Essa

Appellant

Johan Louis Klopper N.O.

Respondent

Kurt Robert Knoop N.O.

Respondent

Juanito Martin Damons N.O.

Respondent

Kgashane Christopher Monyela N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Appeal Against Execution Order Under Section 18 of the Superior Courts Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether exceptional circumstances exist justifying execution of the order pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents will suffer irreparable harm if the order is not executed.
  3. 3 Whether the appellants or third parties will suffer irreparable harm if the order is executed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that exceptional circumstances existed due to the public interest in the rescue entities, their role in supplying coal to Eskom, and the ongoing investigations into state capture. Denial of access to the premises would prevent the rescue practitioners from fulfilling statutory duties and could result in irreparable harm to the national economy and the public. The premises were established as the nerve centre of the rescue entities, and unrestricted access was necessary for effective business rescue. The defence of non-joinder was rejected, as the entities allegedly affected were represented by the appellants and had no direct and substantial interest. The court concluded...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal against the execution of the order of 13 April 2018 is refused. Costs awarded against the appellants jointly and severally on an attorney and client scale, including costs of two counsel where employed.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal against the execution of the order of 13 April 2018 is refused.
  • The appellants are ordered to pay the costs of the appeal jointly and severally on the scale as between attorney and client, including costs of two counsel where so employed.