Van Zyl In re:Kruger NO and Others v Blue Dot Properties (Pty) Ltd (70273/2009) [2011] ZAGPPHC 91 (5 May 2011)

Van Zyl In re:Kruger NO and Others v Blue Dot Properties (Pty) Ltd (70273/2009) [2011] ZAGPPHC 91 (5 May 2011)

The court found that the applicant failed to set out any allegations in his application to intervene that, if proved, would entitle him to succeed in the main application. The affidavit relied on hearsay evidence and did not establish a prima facie case. Furthermore, the application did not demonstrate that it was seriously made or that the applicant would suffer prejudice if intervention was refused. The timing of the application suggested it was brought as an afterthought, and there was no attack on the merits of the winding-up order. Consequently, the requirements for intervention were not met, and the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2011] ZAGPPHC 91
Parties
Applicant: Jacob Johannes van Zyl; Applicant: Paul Daneel Kruger N.O.; Applicant: Ernest Lodewyk Berman N.O.; Applicant: Theodor Wilhelm van den Heever N.O.; Respondent: Blue Dot Properties (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 May 2011
Case Number
70273/2009
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Refusal of Intervention in Winding Up Proceedings
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Pretorius
Legal Topics
Intervention Application, Locus Standi, Winding Up Proceedings, Prima Facie Case
Civil Procedure Intervention Application Locus Standi Winding Up Proceedings Prima Facie Case

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacob Johannes van Zyl

Applicant

Paul Daneel Kruger N.O.

Applicant

Ernest Lodewyk Berman N.O.

Applicant

Theodor Wilhelm van den Heever N.O.

Applicant

Blue Dot Properties (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Refusal of Intervention in Winding Up Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has established a direct and substantial interest in the subject-matter of the litigation to justify intervention.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has set out facts in the application to establish a prima facie case or defence.
  3. 3 Whether the application for intervention was seriously made and not frivolous.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to set out any allegations in his application to intervene that, if proved, would entitle him to succeed in the main application. The affidavit relied on hearsay evidence and did not establish a prima facie case. Furthermore, the application did not demonstrate that it was seriously made or that the applicant would suffer prejudice if intervention was refused. The timing of the application suggested it was brought as an afterthought, and there was no attack on the merits of the winding-up order. Consequently, the requirements for intervention were not met, and the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • Costs to include the costs of two counsel for the respondent and costs of counsel for the trustees.