Sakhikusasa Construction and Projects (Pty) Ltd and Others v CNG Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others (31804/2021;37732/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 67 (31 January 2023)

Sakhikusasa Construction and Projects (Pty) Ltd and Others v CNG Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others (31804/2021;37732/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 67 (31 January 2023)

The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate exceptional or special circumstances warranting the filing of a supplementary affidavit, as no new matter had arisen and all relevant evidence was already contained in the founding and replying affidavits. The application to supplement was therefore dismissed. Regarding the Rule 7(1) application, the court held that Shaheem Samsodien Attorneys had a valid mandate to act for the respondents, supported by board resolutions and longstanding acceptance by the applicants, who had themselves invited service through Samsodien Attorneys. The late challenge to authority amounted to a waiver. The court further found that the applicants'...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPJHC 67
Parties
Applicant: Sakhikusasa Construction and Projects (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: John Zazi Dladla; Applicant: Seshupo Thabiso Mageza; Respondent: CNG Holdings (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa Ltd; Respondent: Reatile Energy (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Steven Rothman N.O.; Respondent: Steven Lee Rothman; Respondent: Xolile Lennox Sizani; Respondent: Aleta Jovner; Respondent: Thandi Hillie; Respondent: Mark Otto; Respondent: Musa Hlongwa; Respondent: Trudy Jane Rothman; Respondent: Theophilous Tintheus De Wet N.O.; Respondent: Shaheem Samsodien Attorneys
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 January 2023
Case Number
31804/2021;37732/2021
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Judgment on Interlocutory Applications: Application to File Supplementary Affidavit and Rule 7(1) Application Challenging Authority of Attorneys.
Outcome
Both interlocutory applications are dismissed with costs.
Judges
M A Makume
Legal Topics
Supplementary Affidavit, Board Resolutions, Directors Removal, Authority of Attorney, Rule 7 Application, Costs De Boniis Propriis
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Supplementary Affidavit Board Resolutions Directors Removal Authority of Attorney Rule 7 Application Costs De Boniis Propriis

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sakhikusasa Construction and Projects (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

John Zazi Dladla

Applicant

Seshupo Thabiso Mageza

Applicant

CNG Holdings (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa Ltd

Respondent

Reatile Energy (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Steven Rothman N.O.

Respondent

Steven Lee Rothman

Respondent

Xolile Lennox Sizani

Respondent

Aleta Jovner

Respondent

Thandi Hillie

Respondent

Mark Otto

Respondent

Musa Hlongwa

Respondent

Trudy Jane Rothman

Respondent

Theophilous Tintheus De Wet N.O.

Respondent

Shaheem Samsodien Attorneys

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Judgment on Interlocutory Applications: Application to File Supplementary Affidavit and Rule 7(1) Application Challenging Authority of Attorneys.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to file a supplementary affidavit to their founding affidavit in case 31804/2021.
  2. 2 Whether Shaheem Samsodien Attorneys have authority to act for the first to eighth respondents in case 37732/2021 under Rule 7(1).
  3. 3 Whether the board resolutions and director appointments were valid under the MOI and Shareholders Agreement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate exceptional or special circumstances warranting the filing of a supplementary affidavit, as no new matter had arisen and all relevant evidence was already contained in the founding and replying affidavits. The application to supplement was therefore dismissed. Regarding the Rule 7(1) application, the court held that Shaheem Samsodien Attorneys had a valid mandate to act for the respondents, supported by board resolutions and longstanding acceptance by the applicants, who had themselves invited service through Samsodien Attorneys. The late challenge to authority amounted to a waiver. The court further found that the applicants'...

Court Disposition

Both interlocutory applications are dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application to admit a supplementary affidavit to the founding affidavit in case number 31804/2021 is dismissed.
  • The application in case number 37732/2021 to declare that Shaheem Samsodien Attorneys have no authority to act for the first respondent is dismissed.