Taljaard and Another v Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa and Others (1335/2021; 963/2021; 964/2021; 2436/2021) [2023] ZANCHC 94 (1 December 2023)

Taljaard and Another v Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa and Others (1335/2021; 963/2021; 964/2021; 2436/2021) [2023] ZANCHC 94 (1 December 2023)

The court found that the applicants failed to establish locus standi, as they did not prove any claims in the insolvent estates and the first applicant was no longer a director after liquidation. The applicants did not demonstrate a direct and substantial interest in the subject matter. Consequently, they failed to establish a prima facie right to the relief sought. The requirements for an interim interdict, including irreparable harm and balance of convenience, were not satisfied. The application was dismissed with costs on an attorney-client scale. The counter-application by the liquidators/trustees to restrict further litigation was struck from the roll due to lack of urgency.

Citation
[2023] ZANCHC 94
Parties
Applicant: Shanie Taljaard; Applicant: Curro Consultancy (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa; Respondent: Minister of Trade and Industry; Respondent: Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development; Respondent: Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC); Respondent: Jochen Eckhoff N.O.; Respondent: Deon Marius Botha N.O.; Respondent: Johannes Zacharias Human Muller N.O.; Respondent: Refilwe Tlhabanyane N.O.; Respondent: Vimbi Angela Tsopotsa N.O.; Respondent: Angeline Poole N.O.; Respondent: Philemon Mawire N.O.; Respondent: Agri South Africa NPC; Respondent: Master of the High Court, Kimberley; Respondent: Master of the High Court, Cape Town; Respondent: Affected Parties of Project Multiply (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Affected Parties of Velvetcream 15 (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Affected Parties of the Merwede Trust; Respondent: Affected Parties of Carel Aron van der Merwe; Respondent: National Real Estate; Respondent: Pieter Burger; Respondent: Piet Steenkamp; Respondent: Nardus Scheepers
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 December 2023
Case Number
1335/2021
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Interim Interdict Pending Rescission Proceedings
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs on attorney-client scale; counter-application struck from the roll with costs.
Judges
Williams
Legal Topics
Interim Interdict, Locus Standi, Liquidation Proceedings, Sequestration, Urgent Application, Creditor Claims
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Interim Interdict Locus Standi Liquidation Proceedings Sequestration Urgent Application Creditor Claims

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

Parties

Shanie Taljaard

Applicant

Curro Consultancy (Pty) Limited

Applicant

Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa

Respondent

Minister of Trade and Industry

Respondent

Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development

Respondent

Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC)

Respondent

Jochen Eckhoff N.O.

Respondent

Deon Marius Botha N.O.

Respondent

Johannes Zacharias Human Muller N.O.

Respondent

Refilwe Tlhabanyane N.O.

Respondent

Vimbi Angela Tsopotsa N.O.

Respondent

Angeline Poole N.O.

Respondent

Philemon Mawire N.O.

Respondent

Agri South Africa NPC

Respondent

Master of the High Court, Kimberley

Respondent

Master of the High Court, Cape Town

Respondent

Affected Parties of Project Multiply (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Affected Parties of Velvetcream 15 (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Affected Parties of the Merwede Trust

Respondent

Affected Parties of Carel Aron van der Merwe

Respondent

National Real Estate

Respondent

Pieter Burger

Respondent

Piet Steenkamp

Respondent

Nardus Scheepers

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Interim Interdict Pending Rescission Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have locus standi to bring the urgent application for interim interdict pending rescission of liquidation and sequestration orders.
  2. 2 Whether Land Bank had locus standi to bring the original liquidation and sequestration applications.
  3. 3 Whether the requirements for an interim interdict have been satisfied.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to establish locus standi, as they did not prove any claims in the insolvent estates and the first applicant was no longer a director after liquidation. The applicants did not demonstrate a direct and substantial interest in the subject matter. Consequently, they failed to establish a prima facie right to the relief sought. The requirements for an interim interdict, including irreparable harm and balance of convenience, were not satisfied. The application was dismissed with costs on an attorney-client scale. The counter-application by the liquidators/trustees to restrict further litigation was struck from the roll due to lack of urgency.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs on attorney-client scale; counter-application struck from the roll with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs on the attorney-client scale, such costs to be borne by the applicants jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved.
  • Such costs are to include, in respect of the 1st respondent, the costs consequent upon the employment of two counsel.