Zarco Formwork And Scaffolding CC and Another v Castle Crest Properties 54 (Pty) Ltd and Others (83573/2018) [2022] ZAGPPHC 108 (25 February 2022)

Zarco Formwork And Scaffolding CC and Another v Castle Crest Properties 54 (Pty) Ltd and Others (83573/2018) [2022] ZAGPPHC 108 (25 February 2022)

The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion regarding the rescission application. The applicants did not establish locus standi, as the first applicant was not a genuine creditor and the second applicant’s indirect interest was insufficient. The application was moot because the property had already been sold at auction and the applicants were aware of this. The rescission application was filed late without seeking condonation, and the explanation for the delay was inadequate. The liquidators had proper authority to institute proceedings, as confirmed by the Master’s accepted resolutions. The matter...

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 108
Parties
Applicant: Zarco Formwork And Scaffolding CC; Applicant: Carlos Jorge Martins N.O (in his capacity as duly authorised trustee of the CJM Investment and Holdings Trust - IT 594/2009); Respondent: Castle Crest Properties 40 (Pty) Ltd (In Liquidation); Respondent: Jay Pema N.O; Respondent: The Master of the High Court, Pretoria; Respondent: The Commissioner of the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission; Respondent: Johannes Zacharais Human Muller N.O; Respondent: Puleng Felicity Bodibe N.O; Respondent: Poncho Lerato Seriti N.O; Respondent: Blend Prop 12 (Pty) Limited; Respondent: The Registrar of Deeds, Pretoria; Respondent: ABSA Bank Limited; Respondent: G.L.S. de Wet N.O; Respondent: K. Titus N.O; Respondent: S. Tintinger N.O; Respondent: South African Revenue Services; Respondent: The Employees of Castle Crest Properties 40 (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd; Respondent: Vans Auctioneers (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Tanya du Preez N.O; Respondent: Maria da Conceicao de Freitas Vasconcelos N.O; Respondent: Mario Rocha N.O
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 February 2022
Case Number
83573/2018
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Rescission Application
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
AC Basson
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Locus Standi, Rescission of Judgment, Condonation, Liquidation Proceedings
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Leave to Appeal Locus Standi Rescission of Judgment Condonation Liquidation Proceedings

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

Parties

Zarco Formwork And Scaffolding CC

Applicant

Carlos Jorge Martins N.O (in his capacity as duly authorised trustee of the CJM Investment and Holdings Trust - IT 594/2009)

Applicant

Castle Crest Properties 40 (Pty) Ltd (In Liquidation)

Respondent

Jay Pema N.O

Respondent

The Master of the High Court, Pretoria

Respondent

The Commissioner of the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission

Respondent

Johannes Zacharais Human Muller N.O

Respondent

Puleng Felicity Bodibe N.O

Respondent

Poncho Lerato Seriti N.O

Respondent

Blend Prop 12 (Pty) Limited

Respondent

The Registrar of Deeds, Pretoria

Respondent

ABSA Bank Limited

Respondent

G.L.S. de Wet N.O

Respondent

K. Titus N.O

Respondent

S. Tintinger N.O

Respondent

South African Revenue Services

Respondent

The Employees of Castle Crest Properties 40 (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd

Respondent

Vans Auctioneers (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Tanya du Preez N.O

Respondent

Maria da Conceicao de Freitas Vasconcelos N.O

Respondent

Mario Rocha N.O

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Rescission Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have reasonable prospects that another court would come to a different conclusion regarding the rescission application.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants had locus standi to bring the rescission application.
  3. 3 Whether the application for rescission was moot.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion regarding the rescission application. The applicants did not establish locus standi, as the first applicant was not a genuine creditor and the second applicant’s indirect interest was insufficient. The application was moot because the property had already been sold at auction and the applicants were aware of this. The rescission application was filed late without seeking condonation, and the explanation for the delay was inadequate. The liquidators had proper authority to institute proceedings, as confirmed by the Master’s accepted resolutions. The matter...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.