Tayob and Another v Shiva Uranium (Pty) Limited and Others (86673/2018) [2019] ZAGPPHC 37 (22 February 2019)

Tayob and Another v Shiva Uranium (Pty) Limited and Others (86673/2018) [2019] ZAGPPHC 37 (22 February 2019)

The court held that the order sought to be appealed is an interim order pending review proceedings and is therefore not appealable unless the applicants can demonstrate irreparable harm. The applicants failed to present any argument or evidence of irreparable harm. The jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court and Supreme Court of Appeal establishes that interim orders are generally not appealable, with exceptions only where irreparable harm is shown. As the applicants did not meet this threshold, the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal and ordered costs against the applicants, including costs for senior counsel.

Citation
[2019] ZAGPPHC 37
Parties
Applicant: Mahomed Mahier Tayob; Applicant: Eugene Januarie; Respondent: Shiva Uranium (Pty) Limited (in business rescue); Respondent: Christopher Kgashane Monyela; Respondent: Juanito Martin Damons; Respondent: Izak Bosman Marais; Respondent: Jan Bosman Marais; Respondent: The Companies and Intellectual Property Commission; Respondent: Companies Tribunal
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 February 2019
Case Number
86673/2018
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Urgent Application and Interim Order
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of senior counsel.
Judges
Mosopa
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Interim Orders, Business Rescue, Appealability, Costs Award
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Leave to Appeal Interim Orders Business Rescue Appealability Costs Award

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mahomed Mahier Tayob

Applicant

Eugene Januarie

Applicant

Shiva Uranium (Pty) Limited (in business rescue)

Respondent

Christopher Kgashane Monyela

Respondent

Juanito Martin Damons

Respondent

Izak Bosman Marais

Respondent

Jan Bosman Marais

Respondent

The Companies and Intellectual Property Commission

Respondent

Companies Tribunal

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Urgent Application and Interim Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the interim order granted is appealable under South African law.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants demonstrated irreparable harm if leave to appeal is not granted.
  3. 3 Whether the interpretation of section 137(4) of the Companies Act was flawed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the order sought to be appealed is an interim order pending review proceedings and is therefore not appealable unless the applicants can demonstrate irreparable harm. The applicants failed to present any argument or evidence of irreparable harm. The jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court and Supreme Court of Appeal establishes that interim orders are generally not appealable, with exceptions only where irreparable harm is shown. As the applicants did not meet this threshold, the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal and ordered costs against the applicants, including costs for senior counsel.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of senior counsel.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • The applicants are ordered to pay the costs of this application, including costs occasioned by the employment of senior counsel.