Sookoo and Others v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service and Another (49048/21) [2022] ZAGPPHC 285 (3 May 2022)

Sookoo and Others v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service and Another (49048/21) [2022] ZAGPPHC 285 (3 May 2022)

The court found that the first and second applicants were properly cited in the preservation order and that the curator acted within the scope of his powers in requesting information and refreezing accounts when information was withheld. The urgency claimed by the first and second applicants did not justify anticipation of the return date, as no exceptional circumstances were shown. The court accepted the curator's evidence per the Plascon Evans principle. The third applicant, On Track Mobile (Pty) Ltd, was not cited in the preservation order, and its assets were preserved without legal basis. The preservation of the third applicant's assets was declared unlawful, and immediate release...

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 285
Parties
Applicant: Vishen Sookoo; Applicant: Spirit of Africa (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: On Track Mobile (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service; Respondent: Jacques van Wyk N.O.
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 May 2022
Case Number
49048/21
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Anticipate Return Date and Declare Preservation of Assets Unlawful
Outcome
Application partially granted: relief for third applicant only; first and second applicants' urgent relief refused.
Judges
E van der Schyff
Legal Topics
Tax Preservation Order, Urgent Application, Curator Bonis Powers, Tax Administration Act, Anticipation of Return Date
Tax Law Civil Procedure Tax Preservation Order Urgent Application Curator Bonis Powers Tax Administration Act Anticipation of Return Date

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

Parties

Vishen Sookoo

Applicant

Spirit of Africa (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

On Track Mobile (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service

Respondent

Jacques van Wyk N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Anticipate Return Date and Declare Preservation of Assets Unlawful

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the preservation order against the first and second applicants should be anticipated and discharged on an urgent basis.
  2. 2 Whether the curator acted unlawfully in freezing accounts not cited in the preservation order.
  3. 3 Whether the preservation of assets of the third applicant is lawful.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the first and second applicants were properly cited in the preservation order and that the curator acted within the scope of his powers in requesting information and refreezing accounts when information was withheld. The urgency claimed by the first and second applicants did not justify anticipation of the return date, as no exceptional circumstances were shown. The court accepted the curator's evidence per the Plascon Evans principle. The third applicant, On Track Mobile (Pty) Ltd, was not cited in the preservation order, and its assets were preserved without legal basis. The preservation of the third applicant's assets was declared unlawful, and immediate release...

Court Disposition

Application partially granted: relief for third applicant only; first and second applicants' urgent relief refused.

Orders

  • The third applicant's non-compliance with the Uniform Rules of Court is condoned and the application is heard on an urgent basis.
  • The preservation of assets of On Track Mobile (Pty) Ltd is declared unlawful and the second respondent is ordered to release such assets forthwith.