Roseveare and Others v Simelane and Others (27833/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 838 (24 October 2022)

Roseveare and Others v Simelane and Others (27833/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 838 (24 October 2022)

The court found that the first respondent had been afforded multiple opportunities to comply with court orders and to present his case, including two previous postponements and extensions for filing documents. Despite these indulgences, the respondent failed to file heads of argument, practice notes, or provide a substantive defence beyond disputing the valuation of his shares. The respondent did not dispute the contractual terms governing the share purchase and failed to provide any reliable alternative valuation or counterclaim. The application for postponement was not brought timeously and lacked bona fide grounds, amounting to an abuse of process. The respondent's claim of lack of...

Citation
[2022] ZAGPJHC 838
Parties
Applicant: Shaun Roseveare; Applicant: Shaun Bradley Roseveare N.O.; Applicant: Ryan Edgar Dennis Roseveare N.O.; Applicant: Christine Mary Whittaker N.O.; Applicant: Craig Munro; Applicant: Steven Patrick Shaulis; Applicant: National Airways Corporation (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: David Ndabenhle Simelane; Respondent: Ultimate Heli (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Ultimate Airways (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Ultimate Heliport (Pty) Limited
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 October 2022
Case Number
27833/2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Opposed Motion; Application for Postponement and Striking Out of Defence
Outcome
The first respondent's defence is struck out. The application for postponement is refused. The applicants are granted the relief sought as per their notice of motion. Costs are awarded against the first respondent on an attorney-client scale.
Judges
Mahomed
Legal Topics
Shareholder Disputes, Prejudicial Conduct, Postponement, Condonation, Valuation of Shares, Striking Out Defence
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Shareholder Disputes Prejudicial Conduct Postponement Condonation Valuation of Shares Striking Out Defence

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shaun Roseveare

Applicant

Shaun Bradley Roseveare N.O.

Applicant

Ryan Edgar Dennis Roseveare N.O.

Applicant

Christine Mary Whittaker N.O.

Applicant

Craig Munro

Applicant

Steven Patrick Shaulis

Applicant

National Airways Corporation (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

David Ndabenhle Simelane

Respondent

Ultimate Heli (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Ultimate Airways (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Ultimate Heliport (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Opposed Motion; Application for Postponement and Striking Out of Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first respondent's defence should be struck out for repeated non-compliance with court orders and failure to file required documents.
  2. 2 Whether the application for postponement and condonation by the first respondent should be granted.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants are entitled to purchase the first respondent's shares at the contractually determined value.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the first respondent had been afforded multiple opportunities to comply with court orders and to present his case, including two previous postponements and extensions for filing documents. Despite these indulgences, the respondent failed to file heads of argument, practice notes, or provide a substantive defence beyond disputing the valuation of his shares. The respondent did not dispute the contractual terms governing the share purchase and failed to provide any reliable alternative valuation or counterclaim. The application for postponement was not brought timeously and lacked bona fide grounds, amounting to an abuse of process. The respondent's claim of lack of...

Court Disposition

The first respondent's defence is struck out. The application for postponement is refused. The applicants are granted the relief sought as per their notice of motion. Costs are awarded against the first respondent on an attorney-client scale.

Orders

  • The first respondent's defence is struck.
  • The order as appears at caselines 0001-9 is granted.