Sanbonani Holiday Spa Share Block Ltd and Others v Off Beat Holiday Club and Others (32171/21) [2023] ZAGPPHC 627 (25 July 2023)

Sanbonani Holiday Spa Share Block Ltd and Others v Off Beat Holiday Club and Others (32171/21) [2023] ZAGPPHC 627 (25 July 2023)

The court held that the Applicants failed to demonstrate that paragraphs 40 and 41 of the amended particulars of claim are irrelevant to the issues in dispute or that they would suffer prejudice if the paragraphs are allowed to stand. The allegations of contravention of the Share Blocks Control Act have been present in the pleadings since the outset of the litigation and form part of the factual background to the oppression claim. The court emphasized that the test for striking out is strict and requires clear prejudice, which was not established by the Applicants. The determination of relevance and admissibility of evidence on these allegations is a matter for the trial court....

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 627
Parties
Applicant: Sanbonani Holiday Spa Share Block Ltd; Applicant: Sanbonani Development (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Hans Michael Harri; Applicant: Hans Michael Harri N.O.; Applicant: Vincent Christopher Calaca N.O.; Applicant: Heleen Duporetha Harri N.O.; Applicant: Sanbonani Hotel Management (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Off Beat Holiday Club; Respondent: Flexi Holiday Club; Respondent: The Commissioner of Companies and Intellectual Property Commission
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 July 2023
Case Number
32171/21
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Portions of Amended Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Application to strike out dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
L Badenhorst
Legal Topics
Shareholder Oppression Remedy, Strike Out Application, Share Blocks Control Act, Pleadings Relevance, Prejudice in Pleadings
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Shareholder Oppression Remedy Strike Out Application Share Blocks Control Act Pleadings Relevance Prejudice in Pleadings

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 25 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sanbonani Holiday Spa Share Block Ltd

Applicant

Sanbonani Development (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Hans Michael Harri

Applicant

Hans Michael Harri N.O.

Applicant

Vincent Christopher Calaca N.O.

Applicant

Heleen Duporetha Harri N.O.

Applicant

Sanbonani Hotel Management (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Off Beat Holiday Club

Respondent

Flexi Holiday Club

Respondent

The Commissioner of Companies and Intellectual Property Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Portions of Amended Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether paragraphs 40 and 41 of the amended particulars of claim are irrelevant and should be struck out under Rule 23(2).
  2. 2 Whether the allegations of contravention of the Share Blocks Control Act are relevant to the oppression remedy under section 252 of the Companies Act.
  3. 3 Whether the Applicants will suffer prejudice if the impugned paragraphs are not struck out.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Applicants failed to demonstrate that paragraphs 40 and 41 of the amended particulars of claim are irrelevant to the issues in dispute or that they would suffer prejudice if the paragraphs are allowed to stand. The allegations of contravention of the Share Blocks Control Act have been present in the pleadings since the outset of the litigation and form part of the factual background to the oppression claim. The court emphasized that the test for striking out is strict and requires clear prejudice, which was not established by the Applicants. The determination of relevance and admissibility of evidence on these allegations is a matter for the trial court....

Court Disposition

Application to strike out dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The application to strike out paragraphs 40 and 41 of the amended particulars of claim is dismissed.
  • Costs are awarded against the Applicants, including costs of two counsel.